Loading...
A group of anthropologists has argued that Europeans may not have been, as generally believed, the first to bring chickens to South America. The group cites European accounts dating from the arrival of Europeans in South America around five hundred years ago that suggest that the Inca had already incorporated chickens into religious ceremonies. Further, a DNA comparison suggests a Polynesian origin for a chicken bone unearthed at Chile's El Arenal site, where other artifacts have been dated to over six hundred years ago.
Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the anthropologists' argument as reported above?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A group of anthropologists has argued that Europeans may not have been, as generally believed, the first to bring chickens to South America. |
|
| The group cites European accounts dating from the arrival of Europeans in South America around five hundred years ago that suggest that the Inca had already incorporated chickens into religious ceremonies. |
|
| Further, a DNA comparison suggests a Polynesian origin for a chicken bone unearthed at Chile's El Arenal site, where other artifacts have been dated to over six hundred years ago. |
|
The argument starts by challenging a widely held belief, then builds support with two pieces of evidence. First, it uses historical records to show chickens were already present when Europeans arrived. Then it reinforces this with scientific evidence that pushes the timeline back even further and suggests a different origin (Polynesian rather than European).
Europeans were not the first to bring chickens to South America - chickens were already there before European arrival, likely brought by Polynesians.
The anthropologists use a combination of historical documentation and scientific analysis to build their case. The European accounts establish that chickens were present upon arrival, while the DNA evidence both confirms non-European origin and extends the timeline back beyond European contact. Together, these premises directly contradict the traditional European-first narrative.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the anthropologists' conclusion that Europeans may not have been the first to bring chickens to South America
The argument makes specific claims about timing (500+ and 600+ years ago), geographic locations (South America, Chile's El Arenal site), scientific evidence (DNA analysis showing Polynesian origin), and historical sources (European accounts of Inca ceremonies)
To weaken this argument, we need to find information that either undermines the reliability of the evidence presented or provides alternative explanations that don't challenge the traditional belief that Europeans brought chickens first. We can attack the DNA evidence, the dating methods, the interpretation of historical accounts, or the connection between the evidence and the conclusion
This choice tells us that sweet potatoes found in Polynesia likely came from South America originally. While this shows there was contact between these regions, it actually supports rather than weakens the anthropologists' argument. If South Americans and Polynesians were trading goods like sweet potatoes, it makes it more plausible that Polynesians could have brought chickens to South America. This doesn't weaken the argument at all.
This choice states that other chicken bones found near the El Arenal site have been dated using an absolutely reliable method. However, this doesn't tell us anything about the specific chicken bone that showed Polynesian DNA, nor does it contradict the findings. If anything, having reliable dating methods for other bones in the area would strengthen confidence in the archaeological work, not weaken the anthropologists' argument.
This choice suggests that Polynesian canoes were capable of reaching South America. This actually strengthens the anthropologists' argument rather than weakening it. If we have evidence that Polynesians had the maritime capability to reach South America, it makes their argument that Polynesians brought chickens there more credible, not less.
This directly undermines the reliability of the European accounts cited as evidence. If Europeans routinely mistook South American ducks for chickens, then their historical records claiming to have found chickens in Inca ceremonies become unreliable. The Europeans might have simply misidentified native waterfowl as chickens, meaning there's no solid evidence that actual chickens were present before European arrival. This significantly weakens one of the key pieces of evidence supporting the anthropologists' argument.
This choice suggests that South Americans could have traveled to Polynesia just as easily as Polynesians could have traveled to South America. While this introduces alternative explanations for cultural exchange, it doesn't directly weaken the evidence that chickens were in South America before Europeans arrived. The anthropologists' argument doesn't depend on who traveled where - it just argues that chickens were there before Europeans, regardless of the direction of travel.