Self-study
In 1893, an excavation led by Wilhelm Dörpfeld uncovered an ancient city he believed to be Troy, the site of the war described in Homer's epic poem the Iliad. But that belief cannot be correct. In the Iliad, the Trojan War lasted ten years, but a city as small as the one uncovered by Dörpfeld's team could not have withstood a siege lasting ten years.
2.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
a
In 1893, scholars knew of no other ancient city that could have been Troy.
Absence of alternative doesn’t make the available option better or worse. It doesn’t matter that we didn’t know of any other cities that could have been Troy.
b
The Iliad does not provide any clues about the specific location of Troy.
If negated, this has no effect on the argument. If The Iliad did provide these clues, we don’t know anything about what they were, or if they would help to confirm or eliminate this ancient city as Troy.
c
Dörpfeld's team found no evidence in the city they excavated that a siege had occurred there.
This would strengthen the argument, but it isn’t necessary. Even if the team had found evidence of a siege, it doesn’t destroy the argument, because we don’t know that the siege evidenced was from the Trojan War. The siege could have been from some other conflict.
d
The city excavated by Dörpfeld's team had many features that scholars of the time believed Troy had.
If anything (D) weakens our argument. We are trying to conclude that this city is not Troy.
e
The Iliad accurately represents the duration of the Trojan War.
If this is negated, then there’s no reason to compare The Iliad to the ancient city. The argument is ruined if the assumption is negated, and so this assumption is necessary.