Q26

[magnusgan]

Ok... Where does the author say that it was impossible to confirm the accuracy of the construction? Looking at lines 45 to 53, we see that the author only suggests that it is difficult to know...

[noah]

Tricky question indeed!

Here're we're asked to infer what the author would agree with about the archaeological record.

So I don't head into a tailspin, what do I generally know the author thinks about the archaeological record? He/she thinks that it doesn't prove a theory in this case because some new data might turn up.

Let's do this real time:

(A) seems to contradict the author's point here.

(B) is a comparison trap. The author doesn't compare how useful the evidence is for different types of research.

(C) is unsupported. While the duration of the Mayan civilization is mentioned (as is the accuracy of the archaeological record), we never see a discussion of how one depends on the other. Instead, we see that b/c the record might lead us astray, we may be mistaken about a civilization's duration.

(D) looks good: it's anti-archaeological record. Keep it.

(E) is also looking good! In fact, this one looks better since the author was not as severe as (D) suggests (the author doesn't ever say that we should not use the archaeological record, just that there are limits to what we can say based on it). The author says "If there is a central flaw..." and in lines 51-53 puts forward a relatively guarded criticism: that there might be new evidence. Thus, the author says that we can't ever be 100% sure.

So, while lines 43-53 can be interpreted as a "we may be wrong" sort of statement, it's easy to say that it's also suggesting we can't ever be totally sure.

That clear it up?

[magnusgan]

Alright, I have to agree with you that it leaves on the table the possibility that something new can come along any time and bust up an established theory...


Thank you!

[maria487]

Tricky question indeed!

Here're we're asked to infer what the author would agree with about the archaeological record.

So I don't head into a tailspin, what do I generally know the author thinks about the archaeological record? He/she thinks that it doesn't prove a theory in this case because some new data might turn up.

Let's do this real time:

(A) seems to contradict the author's point here.

(B) is a comparison trap. The author doesn't compare how useful the evidence is for different types of research.

(C) is unsupported. While the duration of the Mayan civilization is mentioned (as is the accuracy of the archaeological record), we never see a discussion of how one depends on the other. Instead, we see that b/c the record might lead us astray, we may be mistaken about a civilization's duration.

(D) looks good: it's anti-archaeological record. Keep it.

(E) is also looking good! In fact, this one looks better since the author was not as severe as (D) suggests (the author doesn't ever say that we should not use the archaeological record, just that there are limits to what we can say based on it). The author says "If there is a central flaw..." and in lines 51-53 puts forward a relatively guarded criticism: that there might be new evidence. Thus, the author says that we can't ever be 100% sure.

So, while lines 43-53 can be interpreted as a "we may be wrong" sort of statement, it's easy to say that it's also suggesting we can't ever be totally sure.

That clear it up?

I see (E) as using stronger language than (D). In fact, that is why I chose (D)--I saw "ultimately impossible to confirm" as way too strong to extract from "it is difficult to know..." (line 47). I didn't see a good answer on this question as the only 2 viable contenders were both overly strong in my opinion. Can you further explain this please?

Thank you for your help!

[ohthatpatrick]

Try to paraphrase the sentiment in (D) and (E), to hear which one conveys a stronger message.

I would rephrase (D) to mean, "Do NOT use archaeological evidence as a source of data, when you're trying to figure out what happened in some period of history."

Ouch.

(E) is saying, "Use it, but realize that we'll never be 100% sure."

You're really just trying to feel out which one better matches the author's tone.

Line 44 - IF there's a central flaw, it's that Lowe's argument hinges on accuracy of archaeological record. But it's difficult to know how accurate that record is. It is quite possible that our understanding might be altered by new data.

That sounds like moderate skepticism to me. (D) is writing off an entire category of evidence as "inappropriate as a SOURCE of data".