Subscription pricing
It took me 20 min, and I still could not find the right answer, so I just left it. I was stuck between A, D, and E. Any help? Thanks 7Sage.
0
It took me 20 min, and I still could not find the right answer, so I just left it. I was stuck between A, D, and E. Any help? Thanks 7Sage.
3 comments
The deeper the sample, the further back in the past you go
@ashleytien240 said:
Someone correct me if I am wrong!
A.) If this were true, then all layers could be contaminated but we know from the premises the correlation is steady between the samples and time. The only sample in question was that deepest sample not the others before it and if this were true that would mess it up.
B.) This just doesn't affect the argument
C.) All because there was no evidence that people were using coal for fuel doesn't mean there weren't coal deposits
D.) This gets the sample-time correlation backwards. The stimulus says we are going further into the past as we get deeper into the rock shelter but this implies the opposite so would strengthen the doubt that the deepest sample was that old
E.) This just doesn't affect the argument; so is it more or less likely the samples were contaminated?
Thanks Ashley! Question, when you state "correlation is steady between the samples and time"; what do you mean by that?
Someone correct me if I am wrong!
A.) If this were true, then all layers could be contaminated but we know from the premises the correlation is steady between the samples and time. The only sample in question was that deepest sample not the others before it and if this were true that would mess it up.
B.) This just doesn't affect the argument
C.) All because there was no evidence that people were using coal for fuel doesn't mean there weren't coal deposits
D.) This gets the sample-time correlation backwards. The stimulus says we are going further into the past as we get deeper into the rock shelter but this implies the opposite so would strengthen the doubt that the deepest sample was that old
E.) This just doesn't affect the argument; so is it more or less likely the samples were contaminated?