Q15 - A scientific team compared gold samples from

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The gold in the artifacts was dug from the ancient mine.
Evidence: Gold from the artifacts had the same (unusual) ratio of trace elements that gold from the ancient mine had.

Answer Anticipation:
Here we go again, with the most classic argument template:
PREMISE = curious fact / correlation / change
CONCLUSION = explanation for / interpretation of that premise.

Here, we've got
CURIOUS FACT: Artifact-gold had the same (unusual) ratio of trace elements that Ancient Mine-gold had
AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION: Artifact-gold came from that ancient mine

We always address this classic template with the same two questions.
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain the Curious Fact?
If the artifacts WEREN'T from that mine, what ELSE could account for the same ratio?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the Author's Explanation?
Any other evidence that would make us think the artifacts could have / couldn't have come from that ancient mine?

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES? This seems like a #1 type answer. Even if the artifacts didn't come from the mine, they could still have the same trace element ratio because both the mine and the nearby riverbed were getting their gold from the same common source.

(B) This would strengthen, #2 style, by making it more plausible that the artifacts were from the mine.

(C) This strengthens, #2 style. If we found out that the mine was open many centuries AFTER the artifacts were made, we would know that the author's explanation was implausible.

(D) This doesn't affect anything. We have no way to judge whether these previous artifacts had gold that came from the mine or not.

(E) This almost works, #2 style, but it doesn't have a lot of punch. "Much of the gold" is not a precise quantifier, so it could still be less than 50% of the gold. Knowing that much of the gold from the mine went faraway helps to somewhat decrease the plausibility that the nearby gold artifact was made with gold from the mine, but there's still plenty of gold coming out of that mine that is potentially staying local, so this answer has very little force.

Takeaway/Pattern: "When we Weaken arguments based on Explanations/Interpretations, the correct answer is most often a #1 style, so prime your brain with the question, ""How ELSE could I explain how this gold artifact could have the same unusual trace element ratio as this gold from the mine?""

When we Strengthen arguments based on Explanations/Interpretations, it's more common for us to get a #2 style answer that adds some plausibility to the author's story."

#officialexplanation

[JorgeL203]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The gold in the artifacts was dug from the ancient mine.
Evidence: Gold from the artifacts had the same (unusual) ratio of trace elements that gold from the ancient mine had.

Answer Anticipation:
Here we go again, with the most classic argument template:
PREMISE = curious fact / correlation / change
CONCLUSION = explanation for / interpretation of that premise.

Here, we've got
CURIOUS FACT: Artifact-gold had the same (unusual) ratio of trace elements that Ancient Mine-gold had
AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION: Artifact-gold came from that ancient mine

We always address this classic template with the same two questions.
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain the Curious Fact?
If the artifacts WEREN'T from that mine, what ELSE could account for the same ratio?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the Author's Explanation?
Any other evidence that would make us think the artifacts could have / couldn't have come from that ancient mine?

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES? This seems like a #1 type answer. Even if the artifacts didn't come from the mine, they could still have the same trace element ratio because both the mine and the nearby riverbed were getting their gold from the same common source.

(B) This would strengthen, #2 style, by making it more plausible that the artifacts were from the mine.

(C) This strengthens, #2 style. If we found out that the mine was open many centuries AFTER the artifacts were made, we would know that the author's explanation was implausible.

(D) This doesn't affect anything. We have no way to judge whether these previous artifacts had gold that came from the mine or not.

(E) This almost works, #2 style, but it doesn't have a lot of punch. "Much of the gold" is not a precise quantifier, so it could still be less than 50% of the gold. Knowing that much of the gold from the mine went faraway helps to somewhat decrease the plausibility that the nearby gold artifact was made with gold from the mine, but there's still plenty of gold coming out of that mine that is potentially staying local, so this answer has very little force.

Takeaway/Pattern: "When we Weaken arguments based on Explanations/Interpretations, the correct answer is most often a #1 style, so prime your brain with the question, ""How ELSE could I explain how this gold artifact could have the same unusual trace element ratio as this gold from the mine?""

When we Strengthen arguments based on Explanations/Interpretations, it's more common for us to get a #2 style answer that adds some plausibility to the author's story."

#officialexplanation

Why does D not affect anything?

I thought D raised the possibility that, rather than being dug from a mine, the gold actually came from another artifact. Why doesn't that weaken the argument?

[Misti Duvall]

You're right that answer choice D does raise the possibility that the gold from the artifacts mentioned in the stimulus came from earlier artifacts. However, there's no reason the gold from those earlier artifacts couldn't have come from the mine. So if an earlier artifact was made from gold that came directly from the mine, that same gold, when used in a later artifact, still came from that same mine.

For ex., if I buy a piece of cloth from a specialty shop, then use it to make a pair of pants, the cloth still came from the specialty shop even if later I tear up the pants and use the remaining cloth to make a handbag.

Hope this helps.