Q8 - The fact that the ancient Egyptians and the Maya

[WaltGrace1983]

This question is pretty straightforward but there was nothing on it. I think that the answer choices REALLY help you out here as there as some very quick auto-eliminations here for just being so crazily wrong.

The argument goes like this...

Some purport a link between Egyptians and Maya because htey both built pyramids
+
pyramids were for different functions
-->
This *conclusively* shows that no link existed between the New and Old World civilizations

Whoa! Terrible argument! They are equating a relationship between two civilizations as indicative of the entire relationship between Old and New World civilizations. They are also saying that "not the same function of a particular type of building" = "no connection." What if one borrowed from the other? This would give us a link or a connection.

(E), albeit not the way that I would phrase it, gets at the flaw here. We cannot take one piece of evidence as indicative of such a huge relationship.

The others are pretty much out scope or just too plainly wrong.

[mjacob0511]

"Indicative of a huge relationship"?

I think that (E) is correct because for the argument to be conclusive, he would have to show that not only is this link not a proof to their connection, but there are no other links that could be proofs. He rejects one correlation and decides that because of their difference there were NO links at all.

[WaltGrace1983]

. He rejects one correlation and decides that because of their difference there were NO links at all.

Exactly. I guess what I meant to say was that the relationship is very multi-faceted. Just because their pyramids don't have the same function doesn't mean they have no relationship at all!

Thus, the argument presumes that no other evidence is relevant. He takes ONE facet of their relationship (or lack thereof) to be indicative of/representative of the WHOLE relationship (or lack thereof). The arguer ignores all other evidence that may strengthen/weaken this conclusion.

[keonheecho]

Hi,
I see that E is certainly the best answer...but is that really a necessary assumption of the argument? Couldn't it be the case that other evidence is relevant, but that the other evidence strengthens the argument? The "NO other evidence is relevant" seems a bit extreme....

Thank you

[mkd000]

I think that is a sufficient assumption rather than a nec assumption. For ex., what if other evidence is relevant (i.e., the two diff uses of the pyramids are related to two diff and isolated frameworks and there is further evidence verifying lack of connection). Geeks???

I'm guessing it would be necessary if it said no other evidence must be considered in order to reach the conclusion.

[maryadkins]

I'm guessing it would be necessary if it said no other evidence must be considered in order to reach the conclusion.

Yes. The fact that the conclusion is drawn on this evidence alone relies on the assumption that no other evidence is pertinent to the matter. This is why it's necessary.