PT129.S2.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The archaeologist concludes that the Clovis point wasn’t invented in North America. This is because Clovis points have been found in Siberia, from which paleohumans came to North America on a land bridge that no longer exists.

The archaeologist assumes that paleohumans only went one way across the land bridge. If they ever went back from North America to Siberia, then the Clovis point could have been invented in North America and transported back to Siberia. The archaeologist also assumes that the cache of Clovis points didn't arrive in Siberia at a later time period, perhaps as a result of trade.

This strengthens the argument. If the Siberian Clovis points predate any Clovis points found in North America, and we know people went from Siberia to North America, then it seems more plausible that the Clovis point was invented in Siberia before being brought over to North America.

This doesn't strengthen the argument. All this answer choice does for us is give us some kind of a date for the Clovis points found in Siberia: after the land bridge had disappeared. Without additional information--notice that the stimulus doesn't even tell us whether Clovis points have been discovered in North America--this neither strengthens nor weakens the author's main point that the Clovis point was not invented in North America.

Irrelevant. We don’t care how effective Clovis points were. We’re talking about whether they originated in Siberia or North America.

Irrelevant. We’re talking about paleohuman artifacts, not about what happened after paleohumans left. Those artifacts were likely created by different groups.

If anything, this weakens the argument. It provides a possible alternative explanation for how the Clovis points ended up in Siberia, consistent with the belief that the Clovis point was invented in North America: paleohumans brought the Clovis point back to Siberia from North America across the land bridge.

PrepTest 129 - Section 2 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action