Archaeologist: For 2,000 years

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact1% picked this

   Most modern civilizations could not feed themselves through agriculture without relying

   This answer is only talking about whether or not most civilizations need to irrigate. For the ones that do irrigate, we're only concerned with that the possible civilization-ending repercussions there might be. This answer doesn't give us any information that helps us evaluate the soil / agriculture future of these modern civilizations who rely heavily on irrigation.

   1%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   Factors unrelated to the use of irrigation would probably have caused Sumerian civilization to collapse

   Sure, I mean something's gonna kill all of us. But if you're buddy Louie drowned while trying to swim the English channel, and you're saying to your other buddy, "Don't try to swim the English channel! You'll probably die like Louie did!", it's not a great objection for your friend to say, "ahhh, something would've killed Louie sooner or later." Given that bad soil due to irrigation was the death knell of the Sumerian civilization, it is useful to the author as evidence that other societies who rely similarly on irrigation may have the same fate. It makes no difference to that kind of argument to say, "If irrigation hadn't killed the Sumerians, something else would've."

   4%
3. C

   Correct80% picked this

   Many modern farmers use irrigation techniques that avoid the buildup of salts and other toxic

   Why this is right

   This provides a meaningful difference where our author was Assuming a Similarity. Our author thinks that these modern civilizations who rely heavily on irrigation are going to have the same fate as the Sumerians, because over time these modern societies will also see that irrigation has built up toxic levels of salt in the soil, making it unable to support crops. This answer is saying, "No, the modern societies won't have to worry about that problem. They're different. They have better irrigation techniques that circumvent the salt problem that did in the Sumerians."

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%
4. D

   Out of Scope7% picked this

   Many modern civilizations do not rely to any significant extent on

   Out of Scope: ones that don't irrigate We're all really happy for these other civilizations, but they are irrelevant to the conversation this author is having. Her conclusion is only about civilizations that do irrigate (heavily, at that).

   7%
5. E

   Too Weak8% picked this

   The soil of ancient Sumeria already contained some toxic salts and other impurities before the Sumerians started

   "Some" means at least one, so in this chemical residue sense, if we say "this soil contains some gold", we could mean "at least one molecule of gold". Saying that the Sumerian soil already had "at least some molecules of toxic salts before they started irrigating" doesn't clear irrigation's name of the charges of "killing Sumerian civilization". The evidence is what it is. Whatever the levels of toxic salt were prior to irrigation, the soil was still able to support crops (2000 years worth of agriculture that fed the Sumerian civilization). It was the increase to toxic levels of salts (caused by irrigation) that made the soil unable to support crops. So this answer cannot excuse irrigation of being the cause of the Sumerian collapse.

   8%