Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardWeaken

Archaeologist: Excavations at the ancient city of Orazia have revealed a formidable stone perimeter wall enclosing only the city's central precinct, which housed the royal palace and primary religious structures. The extensive residential sectors, home to Orazia's general populace, were situated outside this wall and completely unfortified. Surviving state chronicles portray Orazian monarchs as deeply committed to protecting their citizenry from the frequent incursions of neighboring empires. Yet, the architectural record belies this narrative. The deliberate choice to fortify solely the administrative and religious center strongly implies that the wall's primary function was to insulate the ruling class from domestic uprisings, rather than to serve as a bulwark against foreign military threats.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the archaeologist's argument?

  1. During periods of anticipated foreign military incursions, the unfortified residential sectors were routinely evacuated, and the entire populace of Orazia was granted temporary sanctuary within the provisioned central precinct.Answer
  2. B
    The neighboring empires that frequently threatened Orazia utilized advanced siege engines capable of breaching heavy stone fortifications, a technology unavailable to domestic insurgents.
  3. C
    Recent geological surveys have identified the deteriorated foundations of a massive earthen rampart that originally enclosed Orazia's residential sectors.
  4. D
    The construction of the monumental stone wall required a massive expenditure of labor, which was primarily drawn from the inhabitants of the unfortified residential sectors.
  5. E
    Historically, Orazian monarchs who were most deeply committed to protecting their citizenry were also the ones who invested the most resources in monumental defensive architecture.

Answer

The statement indicating that the general populace was granted temporary sanctuary within the central precinct during foreign incursions.
The correct answer exploits a crucial assumption in the archaeologist's argument. The archaeologist assumes that a wall built solely around the central precinct indicates a lack of intent to protect the general populace from foreign threats. However, if the entire populace sought refuge inside the fortified central precinct during foreign invasions, then the wall was indeed capable of serving as a bulwark against foreign military threats for all citizens. This alternative explanation perfectly reconciles the architectural evidence with the historical chronicles, thereby completely undermining the author's conclusion that the wall was intended primarily for defense against domestic uprisings.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The wall's primary function was to protect the ruling class from domestic uprisings, rather than to defend against foreign military threats.
The conclusion is the final claim that the author attempts to prove using the architectural evidence.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
1) A stone wall enclosed only the central precinct. 2) The residential sectors were completely unfortified. 3) Historical texts claim monarchs protected citizens from foreign threats, which the author claims is contradicted by the architecture.
These are the stated facts the author relies upon to make the logical leap to the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap (assumption) between the premises and the conclusion.
The archaeologist assumes that because the residential sectors were unfortified, the general populace living there could not be protected by the central wall during an invasion.
If there is a way the central wall could protect everyone, then the architectural evidence does not contradict the historical texts, and the domestic uprising conclusion loses its foundation.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that exploits this gap to undermine the conclusion.
The correct option reveals that the population evacuated into the central precinct during attacks.
This provides a plausible alternative explanation for the wall's design that is perfectly consistent with protecting the citizenry from foreign armies, thereby dismantling the argument.

Key Concept

Evaluating Argument Vulnerabilities (Weaken)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Weaken

More questions from this topic