Self-study
The ruins of the prehistoric Bolivian city of Tiwanaku feature green andacite stones weighing up to 40 tons. █████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██████████████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████████ ███████████ █ █████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ █ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ █████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████
Summarize Argument
Archaeologists hypothesize that in prehistoric times, 40-ton stones quarried in Copacabana were transported to Tiwanaku on reed boats. The archaeologists support this with an experiment where a 9-ton stone was transported from Copacabana to Tiwanaku using a reed boat built with traditional techniques and local materials.
The archaeologists are trying to solve the mystery of how such large stones could be transported so far in prehistoric times. To evaluate how much support their experiment provides for their hypothesis, we need to identify factors that would make the experiment more or less relevant to the prehistoric conditions of the area.
Notable Assumptions
The archaeologists' experiment has a couple of real or potential differences from the historical situation, so they need to make some assumptions to fill in those gaps. Specifically, they assume transporting a 9-ton stone on reed boats is good evidence that reed boats could’ve also transported a 40-ton stone. The archaeologists also assume that the traditional techniques and local materials that they used were actually in use (or at least available) when the stones were quarried and transported to Tiwanaku.
Information that would either confirm or deny one or more of these assumptions would be useful to evaluate the argument.
7.
Which one of the following █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ███████████████ ███████████
a
whether the traditional ██████████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████████
This would be useful information that would either confirm or deny an assumption made by the archaeologists. If the techniques were in use, that makes the experiment more representative of the prehistoric context. If they were not, that creates uncertainty about whether sufficiently strong reed boats were in use at the time.
b
whether green andacite ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████████
The archaeologists are specifically trying to establish how the stones were transported to Tiwanaka. Whether the stones were used at other sites isn't relevant, it doesn't affect the supportive value of the boat experiment either way.
c
whether reed boats ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████
The archaeologists are posing a hypothesis about the use of reed boats back when the andacite stones were first transported. Whether reed boats are in use in modern times doesn't make a difference either way, because it doesn't tell us about those prehistoric times.
d
whether the green ████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████
Whether other stones might be larger isn't relevant to whether the andacite stones could have been transported on reed boats. Even if there were bigger stones, we still wouldn't know where those stones came from or how they were transported, if they were transported at all.
e
whether the reed ████ █████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████
Even if reed boats aren’t durable, the prehistoric inhabitants could’ve just kept building new reed boats to transport stones. We have no reason to think those boats would have to last for several years for the archaeologists’ argument to work.