Loading...
Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago. This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began, when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the archaeologist's argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. |
|
| Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago. |
|
| This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began, when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice. |
|
The argument moves from specific archaeological evidence (skeletons found together) to a general conclusion about cat domestication. It uses the burial evidence to suggest intentional burial, then jumps to a broader claim about the timing and purpose of domestication.
Felines were domesticated around 9,500 years ago when farming began, because they were useful for protecting grain stores from mice.
The archaeologist uses evidence of simultaneous burial (same depth, preservation, age) to conclude that humans and cats had a close relationship 9,500 years ago, then connects this to the agricultural revolution and the practical need for pest control. However, the link between being buried together and being domesticated for grain protection involves several assumptions.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the archaeologist's conclusion that felines were domesticated around the time farming began
The argument makes specific claims about timing (9,500 years ago), purpose (protecting grain from mice), and causation (burial evidence proves domestication coincided with farming)
Look for information that breaks the connection between finding buried skeletons together and concluding domestication happened when farming began. We can attack the assumption that burial together equals domestication, challenge the timing connection to farming, or question whether cats were actually useful for the stated agricultural purpose.
This choice states that no grain stores were found near the burial site. While this might seem relevant since the argument mentions grain protection, it doesn't significantly weaken the conclusion. The absence of grain stores at this particular burial site doesn't mean cats weren't domesticated elsewhere for grain protection around the same time period. Archaeological sites don't always preserve all types of organic materials, and burial sites aren't necessarily located near storage areas.
This indicates the Cyprus burial site is older than other known sites with cats and humans buried together. Rather than weakening the argument, this actually could strengthen it by suggesting Cyprus might have been an early center of cat domestication. Being the oldest known example of such burial practices supports rather than undermines the archaeologist's timeline.
This mentions paintings showing people with cats as companions but not hunting mice. This doesn't significantly weaken the argument because the paintings could simply be depicting one aspect of the human-cat relationship. Cats could have been valued both as companions and for pest control, and artistic depictions might focus on the social rather than utilitarian aspects of the relationship.
This is the correct answer. If many burial sites in Cyprus from around 9,500 years ago contain wild animals buried with humans, this severely undermines the archaeologist's reasoning. The argument assumes that finding a cat buried with a human indicates a special domesticated relationship. However, if burying wild animals with humans was a common cultural practice, then the cat could have been wild rather than domesticated. This breaks the crucial link between the burial evidence and the conclusion about domestication.
This states that farmers had no effective mouse protection before cat domestication. This actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument by providing additional motivation for why cats would have been domesticated when farming began. It supports the logical connection between the development of agriculture and the need for pest control.