Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek.	What it says: Archaeologists found a Native American camp in Michigan near Dumaw Creek What it does: Sets up the basic facts about what was discovered What it is: Factual background information
Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755.	What it says: Scientific dating shows the camp existed sometime during a 150-year window What it does: Provides the broad timeframe based on scientific evidence What it is: Scientific evidence Visualization: Timeline: 1605 ←――――― Camp could be anywhere in here ―――――→ 1755 (150-year range)
However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.	What it says: The camp likely ended by 1630 because there are no European items, even though Europeans were trading in the area from the 1620s What it does: Challenges the broad timeframe by narrowing it down using logical reasoning about missing evidence What it is: Author's conclusion with supporting premises Visualization: 1605 ←― Likely camp period ―→ 1630 \| 1620s-1755 (European traders active but no goods found)

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with scientific evidence giving a broad date range, then uses the absence of European trade goods combined with known European trading activity to narrow that range significantly.

Main Conclusion:

The Native American camp probably dates to no later than 1630.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses reasoning from absence - since European traders were active from the 1620s onward but no European goods were found at the camp, the camp must have been abandoned before significant European contact occurred, hence by 1630.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that the camp probably dates to no later than 1630.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes a temporal claim (timing - no later than 1630) based on the absence of European trade goods and the presence of European traders from the 1620s onward.

Strategy

To strengthen this argument, we need information that supports the logic connecting 'no European trade goods found' with 'camp ended by 1630.' We should look for evidence that makes it more likely that Native Americans would have had European goods if the camp existed after 1630, or evidence that supports the reliability of using absence of trade goods as a dating method.

Answer Choices Explained

Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

This actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. If European goods reached the area even before the 1620s through Native American trade networks, then the absence of these goods doesn't necessarily mean the camp ended by 1630 - it could mean the camp simply wasn't connected to these trade networks. This undermines the temporal reasoning the argument relies on.

At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

This strongly supports the argument's logic. If we know that camps from the late 1620s consistently contained European trade goods, then the complete absence of such goods at this site becomes powerful evidence that it predates this period. This establishes a reliable pattern that validates using the absence of trade goods as a dating method, making the conclusion that the camp dates to no later than 1630 much more credible.

The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

This doesn't strengthen the argument because it focuses on preservation rather than presence. Even if goods were carefully preserved, this doesn't help us determine whether the camp existed during the period when European goods were available. The argument depends on whether goods were present at all, not how well they were preserved.

The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

This provides information about the sequence of European contact but doesn't strengthen the connection between the absence of trade goods and the camp's dating. We already know traders were active from the 1620s onward; knowing that explorers came slightly earlier doesn't make the absence of goods a more reliable dating indicator.

The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

This information about the camp's usage pattern doesn't strengthen the temporal argument. Whether the camp was temporary or permanent doesn't affect the logic connecting the absence of European goods to dating the camp before 1630. The duration and nature of occupation doesn't impact the reliability of using trade goods as dating evidence.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...