A rare Roman bronze helmet

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   Most English people want important archaeological items to be housed

   Out of Scope: want Too Strong: most The word "most" is wrong 99% of the time we see it on Necessary Assumption (it's generally only correct if the word "most" appears in the conclusion). After all, the correct answer on Necessary Assumption is an idea that would weaken the argument if we negated it. But when you go from "Most English people want X" to "Not-Most English people want X", you're really just switching from "at least 51% want it" to "at most 49% want it". Not a big deal, so not a big objection. The argument also has nothing to do with what English people want. This argument is only about what the author considers to be an adequate / inadequate level of access. She assumes that having a museum possess an important archaeological item provides more adequate access than having a private collector possess such an item.

   2%
2. B

   Correct94% picked this

   The Roman helmet is part of the archaeological heritage of the

   Why this is right

   Like all Missing Link / Idea correct answers, this answer choice contains wording that is all internal to the stimulus. This is establishing that the author clearly seems to be thinking that this helmet was part of the English people's archaeological heritage, and that because the law failed to get the helmet into a museum, it failed provide adequate access to that heritage. If we negated this and said, "Yo, author -- this helmet is not part of the archaeological heritage of the English people", would that be an objection? Totally! That would mean that the author's evidence is completely irrelevant to her conclusion. That's a huge weakener. She's concluding something about the law, in relation to its ability to give access to English people's archaeological heritage. Her only evidence is about how the law handled this Roman helmet. If the helmet isn't part of the English heritage, then her evidence has nothing to do with her conclusion.

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

   94%
3. C

   Out of Scope Comparison0% picked this

   The Roman helmet is more valuable than most items that are housed

   Out of Scope Comparison: more valuable Too Strong: most The argument never talks about the value of this helmet at all. The argument suggests that the author probably considers the helmet to qualify as a "valuable antiquity", but "valuable" is an Absolute idea. This answer is saying "more valuable", which is a Relative idea. Switching from absolute to relative language (or vice versa) is almost never correct. Additionally this uses the ever-toxic word "most", which is almost always wrong on Necessary Assumption. Does it make any difference to the author's argument whether the helmet is more valuable than at least 51% of the items housed in English museum vs. whether it's only more valuable than 49% of the items? Of course not. Since negating this answer would have no effect on the argument, it can't be right.

   0%
4. D

   Out of Scope Comparison: pay more1% picked this

   The private collector did not pay more for the Roman helmet than an English

   At first this looks enticing, because the word "not" is famously part of correct answers on Necessary Assumption (Defender answers). Would it become a big objection to this argument if we said, "The private collector did pay more for the helmet than an English museum would have"? Not at all. The author is saying the law failed to get this helmet into a museum. It's not talking about specific payment amounts at all.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope Comparison2% picked this

   No English museum could have paid more for the Roman helmet than the

   Out of Scope Comparison: pay more Too Strong: no As we mentioned with (D), the concept of how much the private collector or a museum paid is totally irrelevant to this argument. If the helmet is part of the English heritage and the law failed to force the finder of the helmet to offer it to a museum, then the author can argue that the law failed to give English people adequate access to items from their heritage. If we negate this and say, "There is at least one English museum that could have paid more for the helmet than the collector did", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all.

   2%