PT154.S2.Q16 > 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The archaeologist concludes that the rubbish found in pits near old dwellings reveals little about the possessions of the people who once lived there. She supports by saying that the pits have been eroded over time, damaging the rubbish inside.

The archaeologist assumes that the erosion has damaged the rubbish in the pits so much that it no longer provides much information about the possessions of the people who lived there. She also assumes that any rubbish that didn't decay or erode is either gone or else is not enough on its own to reveal much about the people’s possessions.

This weakens the argument because, if the pits contain tools found nowhere else in the dwellings, then they do provide some great insight into the possessions that the people had.

This addresses the assumption that items less affected by erosion are either gone or else don't provide much insight. If scavengers took the most durable items and only the most eroded ones are left, it makes sense that the pits may not reveal much about the people's possessions.

This is irrelevant because we don’t know if removing the soil around the pits would have had an effect on the rubbish inside the pits.

The argument only focuses on the pits being used for rubbish and what that rubbish shows about the people's possessions. Previous uses of the pits are not relevant because we don't know how, if at all, they would have affected the rubbish.

The argument only addresses what the items that are in the rubbish pits reveal about the people’s possessions. While there are likely many other items that are not in the pits that also provide information, they are not relevant to the argument.

PrepTest 154 - Section 2 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action