The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. by a people called Hyksos. Their...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Evaluate

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. by a people called Hyksos. 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?

Whether there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C.

Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C.

Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan

Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris

Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. by a people called Hyksos.	What it says: The Hyksos invaded and controlled Egypt's Nile Delta for 100 years in ancient times What it does: Sets up the historical context and introduces the Hyksos as our main subject What it is: Historical background information
Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites.	What it says: We don't know where the Hyksos came from, but archaeologists think they might be from Canaan What it does: Introduces the mystery about Hyksos origins and presents the theory we'll examine What it is: Author's statement of the hypothesis being discussed
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.	What it says: Archaeologists found tons of artifacts in the Hyksos capital that look almost exactly like stuff made in a major Canaanite city What it does: Provides the main evidence supporting the Canaanite origin theory What it is: Archaeological evidence presented by researchers Visualization: Avaris (Hyksos capital) ← Nearly identical artifacts → Ashkelon (Canaanite city)

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by introducing the Hyksos and the mystery of their origins, then presents archaeologists' hypothesis that they were Canaanites, and finally offers evidence in the form of nearly identical artifacts found in both the Hyksos capital and a major Canaanite city.

Main Conclusion:

The archaeologists believe the Hyksos were Canaanites, based on similar artifacts found in both locations.

Logical Structure:

The evidence (identical artifacts in both places) is used to support the hypothesis (Hyksos were Canaanites). The logic is that if two groups have virtually identical artifacts, they're likely the same people or closely connected.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Evaluate - We need to find what additional information would help us assess how strong or weak the archaeologists' evidence is for their hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites

Precision of Claims

The evidence is based on quality similarity - artifacts found in Avaris (Hyksos capital) are 'virtually identical' to artifacts produced in Ashkelon (major Canaanite city). The claim is about cultural/ethnic origin based on material culture similarities

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 we get more information. The archaeologists assume that identical artifacts = same origin/ethnicity. We need to find what additional info would help us test this assumption

Answer Choices Explained

Whether there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C.

This doesn't help evaluate the force of the evidence about similar artifacts. Finding dissimilar artifacts from an earlier period doesn't tell us anything about whether the similar artifacts support the Canaanite origin hypothesis. The argument is based on similarities, not differences, and artifacts from before 1700 BC (50 years before the invasion) aren't directly relevant to evaluating the connection.

Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C.

This information about the geographic extent of Hyksos rule doesn't help us evaluate whether the artifact similarities at Avaris support the Canaanite origin theory. The scope of their political control is irrelevant to assessing the archaeological evidence about their ethnic origins.

Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan

While proximity might seem relevant, this doesn't actually help evaluate the strength of the artifact evidence. Whether Avaris was close to or far from Canaan doesn't change the significance of finding Ashkelon-like artifacts there. The argument is about artifact similarity, not geographic proximity.

Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris

This asks about what happened after the Hyksos invasion period ended, but this doesn't help evaluate the evidence about Hyksos origins. What Ashkelon produced after 1550 BC doesn't affect whether the earlier artifact similarities support the Canaanite origin hypothesis.

Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion

This directly evaluates the strength of the archaeologists' evidence. If many similar artifacts at Avaris predate the Hyksos invasion, it would weaken the argument that these artifacts prove Hyksos were Canaanites - they might have been there before the Hyksos arrived. If the artifacts only appeared during or after the invasion, it would strengthen the connection between Hyksos and Canaanites. This information directly tests the core assumption underlying the evidence.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...