Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
实我觉得这道题出得有点问题:原文逻辑:1620开始活跃,且在此没找到货物—> 这个camp是1630前的。本身这个逻辑就是有逻辑缺陷的,在这种情况下要增强肯定是要给一个explain的选项补充这个逻辑缺陷,而不是排他因(C)或者类比(B)
我觉得b应该是无关的:你其他营地发不发现货物是决定是否是1620's,但根据这个逻辑,我现在这里都没找到货物,是不是应该更早于1620's,更应该是1610's,和结论的1630有啥关系吗?
c选项:c选项直接避开了1620和1630这个逻辑漏洞,而是选择排了个他因:不存在弄丢了的情况,这样一来就加重的文章原先的推理,而并没有打算去补文章原有的逻辑漏洞。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论