Archaeologists are currently analyzing plant remains found at a site that was last occupied more than 10,000 years ago. If the plants were cultivated, then the people who occupied the site discovered agriculture thousands of years before any other people are known to have done so. On the other hand, if the plants were wild—that is, uncultivated—then the people who occupied the site ate a wider variety of wild plants than did any other people at the time.

Summary

Archaeologists are studying plant remains from a site that was last occupied over 10,000 years ago. If the plants were cultivated, the people there discovered agriculture much earlier than anyone else. If the plants were wild, those people ate more types of wild plants than any other people at that time.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Whether the plants were cultivated or wild, the people who lived at the site were using some plants differently than other people at that time.

The plant remains could provide insight into whether people at the site practiced farming or ate many types of wild plants.

If the plants are found to have been cultivated, it could challenge previous theories of when humans began cultivating plants.

A
The archaeologists analyzing the plant remains at the site will be able to determine whether the plants were cultivated or were wild.

Unsupported. We do not know if the archaeologists will be able to determine whether the plants were cultivated or wild. The stimulus does not give any information on this.

B
The people who occupied the site used some plants in ways that no other people did at that time.

Strongly supported. If the plants were cultivated, the people discovered agricultural long before other people. If the plants were wild, the people ate more types of wild plants than anyone else. So either way, these people were using some plants in ways that no other people did.

C
If the people who occupied the site had reached a more advanced stage in the use of wild plants than any other people at the time, then the plants found at the site were uncultivated.

Unsupported. The stimulus says nothing about whether these people are “advanced” in their use of wild plants. We also have no reason to believe that being more advanced in the use of wild plants means that these particular plants were uncultivated.

D
If the people who occupied the site discovered agriculture thousands of years before people anywhere else are known to have done so, then there are remains of cultivated plants at the site.

Unsupported. We know that if the plants at the site are cultivated, then the people discovered agriculture before anyone else. We do not know that if they discovered agriculture before anyone else, there must be remains of cultivated plants at the site.

E
It is more likely that the people who occupied the site discovered agriculture thousands of years before people anywhere else did than it is that they ate a wider variety of wild plants than any other people at the time.

Unsupported. The stimulus makes no claims about which scenario is more likely.


49 comments

Historian: The early Egyptian pharaohs spent as much wealth on largely ceremonial and hugely impressive architecture as they did on roads and irrigation systems. This was not mere frivolousness, however, for if people under a pharaoh’s rule could be made to realize the extent of their ruler’s mastery of the physical world, their loyalty could be maintained without military coercion.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author concludes that the early Egyptian pharoahs’ spending on ceremonial architecture was not frivolous. In other words, there was a practical reason for it. They engaged in this kind of spending because it might have helped maintain the loyalty of the masses without needing to use the military to control them.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the conclusion of the argument. It’s the author’s assessment of whether the pharoahs’ spending had a practical use.

A
It is a conclusion purportedly justified by the argument’s appeal to the psychological effects of these structures on the Egyptian population.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. The buildings’ potential to make the pharoahs’ subjects more loyal is a psychological effect. The author cites to this effect to support the claim that the pharoahs’ spending on the buildings was not frivolous.
B
It is offered in support of the claim that Egyptian pharaohs spent as much on ceremonial architecture as they did on roads and irrigation systems.
The referenced text does not support anything in the stimulus. It is a conclusion.
C
It is a premise given in support of the claim that the loyalty of people under a pharaoh’s rule was maintained over time without reliance on military force.
The referenced text is not a premise. It is a conclusion supported by the claim concerning people’s loyalty.
D
It is offered as an illustration of the principle that social and political stability do not depend ultimately on force.
The referenced text is not offered to illustrate anything. It is what the author tries to prove based on the claim that ceremonial buildings might make people loyal to the pharoah.
E
It is a premise used to justify the pharaohs’ policy of spending scarce resources on structures that have only military utility.
The referenced text is not a premise. Also, the author never indicated that the pharoahs’ spending on ceremonial structures had only a military purpose.

5 comments