We are being asked what would call into question that the inscriptions are clearly traceable to record of contributions to a temple. What would weaken this link?

A: Dimension, thickness, and styles could vary. How does that connect to us tracing this to the inscriptions being for temple contributions?

B: Alternate explanation of what these agricultural records could have been used for, they could have just been records of services provided. They didn't have USD $$, they used what they had. Agricultural products in exchange for services. Note in the stimulus it says "CLEARLY TRACEABLE." If there is an alternate explanation as to why agriculture is being inscribed, it isn't clearly traceable.

C: one thing that popped out to me which I had to double check is the lack of evidence defining what year we are in. Where does it say these inscriptions are from exactly after 3000 BC?

D: It doesn't address what we are looking to undermine, clearly tracing these inscriptions/envelopes to records of temple-based contribution pools.

E: We are trying to break down the theory and the first part kind of concedes to her theory to a degree by saying we are required to contribute to a pool which could be the temple contributions. To the second part involving accounting for labor, this part seems murky. It could provide for another account but B seems to do that more definitively without the ambiguity on what "accounting" exactly means. B uses "functions as a record" to provide an alternate explanation for these envelopes which is more concreate means of tracing.

i have done the same but have seen improvement from drilling and doing LR sections. I didn't see improvement at first either. You just need to keep practicing. It's like anything, picking up a sport, instrument, etc. You got this!!!