Question Type:
Weaken
Stimulus Breakdown:
A carved object was found in a Stone Age, Irish tomb. It's too small to be a weapon. The image on it represents speaking. Thus, it's probably a speaking staff (communal object; let's you talk at a meeting).
Answer Anticipation:
The author fairly conclusively rules out weapon, so the correct answer probably won't suggest it's a weapon instead of this speaking staff. The correct answer, then, should suggest a reason to doubt that the object is a speaking staff, either by suggesting something else it might be, or giving a reason that a speaking staff wouldn't end up in a tomb.
Correct answer:
(B)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope/if anything, opposite. Other objects don't impact the purpose of this object. I only have one power tool in my apartment; the lack of other power tools in my apartment doesn't change the likelihood that the power tool exists. If anything, this answer creates a pattern against weapon (unless you argue that every good tomb needs a good weapon).
(B) Boom. This answer choice gives us a reason to suspect that the speaking staff wouldn't end up in a tomb. Since the speaking staff is a communal object, it would be passed to the next generation, not entombed. While this answer doesn't rule out this object being a speaking staff, the "normally" carries enough weight to make us question the conclusion, which is all we need for a Weaken answer choice to do.
(C) Out of scope. This answer suggests the object would be rare, but that doesn't connect to being buried. If you argue that a rare object was probably valuable and thus wouldn't be buried, you're making several assumptions in there that you can't make for a Weaken question. (Assumptions: Rare = Valuable; Valuable = Not Buried. The former isn't too much of a jump, but the second is - just ask the Egyptians!)
(D) If anything, opposite. There are some minor scope issues here. That said, even if we say that the profession of the individual is 100% relevant and connects to the premises (which there's evidence for - "assembly"), this answer would, if anything, provide evidence that this object is a speaking staff.
(E) Out of scope. This answer tries to connect the two premises, but that's not relevant to the conclusion. Each premise speaks to a different role, so connecting them neither helps nor hurts the conclusion.
Takeaway/Pattern:
When an argument rules out one possibility in the premises, there's a good chance that only trap answers will speak to that possibility. When a conclusion picks a possibility, the answer will either provide evidence for an alternative possibility, or provide evidence against the conclusion's possibility (this latter option is what we see here).
#officialexplanation