Self-study
Treasure hunter: In general, archaeological artifacts found on public property cannot legally be privately owned. ███ █████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████
██████████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████
Structure: Disagreement
The treasure hunter provides a reason why he thinks there should be an exception to the general rule forbidding private ownership of archaeological artifacts found on public property. There is an old maritime law allowing people to keep cargo they have salvaged if they have risked their lives trying to rescue an endangered ship. He argues that treasure hunters, because they risk their lives to save shipwrecks "from oblivion," are entitled by this rule to keep the cargo they have salvaged.
The archaeologist counters the treasure hunter's argument by arguing that these shipwrecks have "stabilized" after long periods underwater, and that "greedy treasure hunters" are the only danger threatening these shipwrecks.
Analysis: Point at Issue
To understand the point at issue here, it's really important to understand how each of these arguments works. The treasure hunter's argument tries to apply a principle to a specific situation. The principle that he appeals to is the maritime law that if you risk your life attempting to rescue a ship in peril, you can keep the cargo you salvage. By applying this principle to the case of treasure hunters salvaging cargo from shipwrecks, the treasure hunter necessarily assumes that such activity counts as "risking one's life" to "rescue a ship in peril." This seems like a bit of a stretch — after all, the shipwrecks aren't exactly in immediate "peril" — but it's clear the treasure hunter thinks saving these ships "from oblivion" (i.e., from being forgotten) should qualify as "rescuing" these ships.
This helps us understand what the archaeologist means by "Not so," and why the archaeologist makes the claim that these shipwrecks have "stabilized" after centuries underwater. When the archaeologist says "not so," she means that these shipwrecks aren't in danger — and so the behavior of treasure hunters, contrary to the treasure hunter's argument, does not fit the criteria of the maritime law. This is why the archaeologist also says that the "only" danger these shipwrecks face is from treasure hunters. The archaeologist is disputing the treasure hunter's assumption that these ships are in some kind of danger, and thus rejecting an assumption necessary to the treasure hunter's argument.
13.
On the evidence of their ███████████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
what constitutes an ██████████████ ████████
Neither the treasure hunter nor the archaeologist defines what constitutes an archaeological artifact. The disagreement is about whether this maritime law applies to treasure hunters salvaging artifacts from shipwrecks, not about what constitutes artifacts to begin with.
b
in what sense, ██ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ █████
Correct. By arguing that the maritime law applies to the behavior of treasure hunters, the treasure hunter must assume that the behavior of treasure hunters qualifies as "attempting to rescue a ship in peril" — and we see him depicting their behavior as trying to "save" these shipwrecks "from oblivion".
Meanwhile, the archaeologist responds by arguing that these shipwrecks are not in peril — that they have "stabilized," and that it is actually the treasure hunters' behavior that poses the only danger to these ships. So the treasure hunter and archaeologist disagree about whether these shipwrecks qualify as "in peril."
c
whether treasure hunters ████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████
This is a tricky answer choice. It's true that while the treasure hunter portrays treasure hunters' behavior in a fundamentally positive light, as risking their lives to "save" shipwrecks from being forgotten, the archaeologist portrays their behavior as negative and destructive. But the archaeologist doesn't deny that the treasure hunters risk their lives in this behavior. Even if their behavior is "greedy" and destructive, it could still be true that they are risking their lives engaging in it.
So we don't actually know whether or not the archaeologist thinks treasure hunters are risking their lives. What we do know is that the archaeologist thinks that, even if the treasure hunters are risking their lives, the shipwrecks don't count as "in peril," as the treasure hunter claims. This is the point where they explicitly disagree, and the reason the archaeologist thinks this maritime law doesn't apply to treasure hunters' behavior. Since (C) doesn't capture this point, (C) is incorrect.
d
whether maritime law ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████
Incorrect. Neither the treasure hunter nor the archaeologist makes any claims about all cases of maritime law ever applying to sunken ships. The disagreement is over one specific maritime law, and whether it applies not to sunken ships in general, but specifically to the behavior of treasure hunters in salvaging cargo from sunken ships.
e
whether antique shipwrecks ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ████████
Incorrect. The issue of "public property" doesn't come up at all in the archaeologist's argument. She doesn't dispute whether the shipwrecks count as being on public property, but whether (as the treasure hunter claims) they count as being "in peril."