The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Their origin is uncertain,...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos' invasion.
In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. |
|
| Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. |
|
| In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos' invasion. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with background about the mysterious Hyksos rulers, then presents a theory about their origin (Canaanite), and finally offers archaeological evidence (identical artifacts) to support this theory.
Main Conclusion:
The Hyksos were likely Canaanites, based on archaeological evidence showing nearly identical artifacts between their capital and a major Canaanite city.
Logical Structure:
This is an evidence-based argument where archaeologists use artifact similarity as proof of origin. The logic is: if the Hyksos and Canaanites made virtually identical items, they were probably the same people or closely connected.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - This question asks us to determine what additional information would be most useful to assess how strong the archaeologists' evidence really is for their hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites.
Precision of Claims
The key claim is qualitative - that 'large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon' supports the hypothesis that Hyksos were Canaanites. We need to evaluate the strength of this similarity-based evidence.
Strategy
For evaluate questions, we need to think of assumptions underlying the argument and create scenarios that would either strengthen or weaken the conclusion when taken to extremes. The archaeologists are using artifact similarity as evidence of origin, so we need to think about what could make this evidence stronger or weaker.
Whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities - This directly addresses a critical assumption in the archaeologists' reasoning.
- If artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities, then finding these artifacts in Avaris could simply mean the Hyksos acquired them through trade, not that they were Canaanites themselves. This would significantly weaken the evidence.
- Conversely, if these artifacts were NOT widely traded, it would strengthen the argument that similarity indicates shared origin.
This information directly evaluates the force of the evidence by testing whether there's an alternative explanation for the artifact similarity.
Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris - While this might provide additional context, it doesn't directly challenge the core logic of the argument. Even if many non-Ashkelon artifacts were found, the presence of large numbers of Ashkelon-like artifacts could still support the Canaanite hypothesis. This information would be interesting but not as crucial for evaluating the specific evidence presented.
Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan - The geographic proximity doesn't significantly impact the strength of the artifact-based evidence. Whether Avaris was the nearest or farthest Hyksos city, the presence of virtually identical artifacts would carry the same evidential weight regarding the Hyksos' origin. This information is largely irrelevant to evaluating the archaeological evidence.
Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris - This focuses on what happened after the Hyksos period ended, but the archaeologists' evidence concerns artifacts from the period when the Hyksos ruled (1650-1550 B.C.). Post-1550 B.C. artifact production doesn't affect the strength of evidence about Hyksos origins during their rule. This is temporally irrelevant to the hypothesis being evaluated.
Whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C. have been found in Egypt - Similar to Choice D, this focuses on the post-Hyksos period, but the argument is specifically about the origin of the Hyksos during their rule from 1650-1550 B.C. What happened after their rule ended doesn't impact the evidence about where they came from originally. This information is outside the relevant timeframe for the hypothesis.