PT20.S1.Q05 - archaeologist: a large corporation

Comments

• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 2398 karma

  For a principle justification question such as this, we need an answer that will help justify the decision that was made in the stimulus--whether it be a principle that says how to act in a certain situation or a principle that provides a reason to support the decision that was made. For this question, the right answer takes the latter form.
  
  First, you must identify the conclusion: "the offer should be rejected"
  
  Why? That's the support: the site has a lot of unexamined evidence.
  
  So we are looking for a principle that says something along the lines of "no new construction should take place on a historical site if that site has unexamined evidence that would inform historical theories."
  
  A: should not be under control of business interests? Nope this doesn't match at all. We need to justify why the plan should be rejected.
  
  B: what a restoration should represent? Nope, this talks about the qualities that should be present in a restoration, not whether or not it's a good idea to restore.
  
  C: make judgments about other civilizations? Clearly wrong.
  
  this deals with those doing the restoring, which is not at all close to what the conclusion is saying.
  
  E: this supports why the plan should be rejected! Why? Because the risk of losing evidence should outweigh any advantages of displaying Theories already developed. That's exactly what the stimulus says. Winner!
  
  Hope this helps!
• nye8870 Alum ⭐

  August 2015 1749 karma

  @c.janson35 I certainly see all the appropriate reasons to eliminate a-d, however I still must take issue with the notion of "a risk of losing evidence". Where or what is stated in the stimulus that would lead us to believe that this is a concern at all? Are we supposed to assume that whatever restoration occurs will cause this unexamined evidence to be lost? I don't see why that has to happen.
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 2398 karma

  @nye8870 right, I can see how it's a little bit of a stretch, but I can also see how constructing facilities atop a site that contains unexamined evidence risks losing that evidence in the construction. The risk may be small if, for example, appropriate excavation procedures are done before the construction, but a small risk is a risk nonetheless. And the stimulus says that "many" parts of the site have the unexamined evidence, so maybe it's not that much of a stretch to assume that it would be really hard to find all the unexamined evidence prior to the construction (why else would the evidence still be unexamined?). Putting all this together, I can see how there could easily be a risk however slight it may be. But I also agree that there are assumptions you have to make to reach this point that aren't necessarily rock solid!
• nye8870 Alum ⭐

  August 2015 1749 karma

  @c.janson35 yeah I know. And I'll add one plausible assumption....Nowadays they are using lasers to map ruins in order to see why/how they deteriorate etc. So if we build atop any still existing structural matter we may forever lose the opportunity to measure such information. So now we've exhausted that...and on test day I would have had about five minutes left for the last 12 questions. Strike three for over thinking!