Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardWeaken

Archaeologist: Recent excavations at the Bronze Age settlement of Tell el-Marra uncovered dozens of copper-alloy daggers containing significant concentrations of arsenic rather than tin. Because tin-copper bronze was markedly more durable than arsenical copper, and substantial tin ore deposits were located less than thirty kilometers from the settlement, the metalworkers at Tell el-Marra must have lacked the metallurgical knowledge required to smelt and alloy tin with copper.

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

  1. A
    Surrounding settlements that maintained documented trade contact with Tell el-Marra routinely produced tin-copper bronze tools with sophisticated metallurgical alloying techniques.
  2. B
    In high-humidity climates, weapons crafted from arsenical copper retain their structural integrity and sharp cutting edges far longer than those made from tin-copper bronze.
  3. The tin ore deposits located near Tell el-Marra were controlled by a hostile regional power that enforced an embargo prohibiting the settlement from mining or importing the ore.Answer
  4. D
    Excavations at Tell el-Marra failed to recover the ceramic crucibles and stone casting molds that were standard equipment in Bronze Age foundries.
  5. E
    No ancient metalworkers ever developed the ability to smelt tin ores without first mastering the extraction and processing of arsenical copper.

Answer

The option stating that the tin deposits near Tell el-Marra were controlled by a hostile regional power that enforced an embargo prohibiting access to the ore.
The correct answer provides an alternative explanation for why the metalworkers did not produce tin-copper bronze. The archaeologist infers a lack of technical competence solely from the fact that tin ore was geographically close yet unused. Showing that a hostile political entity blocked access to the deposit breaks the assumption of availability, demonstrating that a lack of raw materials rather than a lack of metallurgical skill explains the composition of the daggers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument to isolate the premises and the main conclusion.
Premises: Excavated daggers used arsenic instead of tin; tin bronze is mechanically superior to arsenical copper; tin ore was physically located within thirty kilometers. Conclusion: The metalworkers lacked the technical knowledge to smelt and alloy tin.
Deconstructing the argument into premises and conclusion is essential for identifying the logical vulnerability.
2
Identify the unstated assumption linking the premises to the conclusion.
The author assumes that because tin deposits were geographically close, the artisans had practical access to the ore, meaning that the only reason they did not use it was ignorance or lack of skill.
Weakening an argument requires exposing an unstated assumption or providing an alternative explanation for the observed facts.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that provides an alternative cause for the failure to use tin.
The statement showing that a hostile power blocked access to the nearby tin deposits proves that lack of physical access, not lack of metallurgical skill, prevented the use of tin.
Demonstrating an external barrier to resource acquisition directly undermines the conclusion that the artisans were technically incapable.

Key Concept

Causal Fallacy / Overlooked Alternative Explanation
Rate this question

Topics

Weaken

More questions from this topic