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.
果因
∵没发现European trade goods(European traders在1620‘s活跃)
∴NA camp的年代在1605-1630之间
加强,因果链条/加强∵的说服力(此题为后者)
A、Euro的货物来得比人早,这个条件能加强需要在发现European trade goods 的基础上,无关
B、在所有能追溯到 late 1620's的camps中,都有European trade goods出现,加强了文中说的“European traders在1620‘s活跃”这一点,所以当∵的真实性被进一步证明,加强∴理所应当,CORRECT
C、来到这里( the area )的European trade goods都会被珍藏,太模糊了,勉强
D、Euro的trader是在explorer之后来的,无关
E、这个 camp 是季节性的
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论