Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumIdentifying Main Conclusions

Read the following argument from an anthropologist. Then, match each excerpt from the argument to the statement that best describes its structural role.

Anthropologist: The prevailing hypothesis regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization points to a period of prolonged drought as the primary cause. But this drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing. While paleoclimatological records do confirm a severe drought during that era, several major Maya cities located in the driest regions continued to thrive for centuries after the drought began. Therefore, factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the societal collapse.

  • The prevailing hypothesis regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization points to a period of prolonged drought as the primary cause.A claim that the anthropologist's argument is designed to refute
  • this drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincingA subsidiary conclusion used to support the argument's ultimate claim
  • paleoclimatological records do confirm a severe drought during that eraA factual concession made to the viewpoint being criticized
  • several major Maya cities located in the driest regions continued to thrive for centuries after the drought beganEvidence offered to undermine a competing explanation
  • factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the societal collapseThe main conclusion of the anthropologist's argument

Answer

The correct matches identify the precise structural role of each statement, distinguishing the ultimate main conclusion ('factors other than climate change...') from a subsidiary conclusion, premises, and opposing viewpoints.
By breaking down the argument structurally, we can see that the author sets up an opposing claim, concedes a supporting fact for it, but introduces strong counter-evidence. This evidence leads to a subsidiary conclusion (the opposing claim is unconvincing), which leads to the final main conclusion (other factors must be responsible).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the collapse.
This is the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove, appearing at the end of the logical chain.
2
Identify the opposing viewpoint being argued against.
The opposing view is that the collapse was caused primarily by a period of prolonged drought.
The author introduces this as the 'prevailing hypothesis' before rejecting it.
3
Locate the subsidiary conclusion.
The subsidiary conclusion is that the drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing.
This statement is supported by the evidence of thriving cities and, in turn, supports the main conclusion.
4
Distinguish between the concession and the counter-evidence.
The concession is the confirmation of severe drought. The counter-evidence is the fact that cities in driest regions thrived.
The concession acknowledges a point in favor of the opposition, while the counter-evidence directly undermines the opposition.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusions and Argument Structure
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Main Conclusions

More questions from this topic