Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

I chose C, however, answer is B. I have similar question earlier as well and as per those logic, it is irrelevant what other sites have because this site can be an exception. Please elaborate why that is not the case here.

Bangu,

The argument mentions the following 2 things and, therefore, they must be true:
1. no European trade goods were found at the site
2. the site, as dated, could also be in existence in 1645, for example.

Now, both these statements cannot be simultaneously true. This is further supported by option B, which says that all other sites that were in existence at similar time had European trade goods. Hence, if the dating were correct, this site in question must also have had the goods. The argument, hence, challenges the correctness of the dating process and proves through option B that the process is incorrect.

If you notice carefully, every other option seems generalised and either does not attack the argument effectively or is irrelevant.

Yes.Here the process of elimination works effectively to get to the desired solution.

Instructors,

would you please provide more clarification on choice B. Elimination helps but I would like to understand the logic behind B and the questiion. Thanks.

Shouldn't the original question read "weaken" the argument.

Doesn't B weaken the argument instead of strengthening it?

no, choice (b) strengthens the argument.
the argument uses the absence of european trade goods as evidence by which to date the settlement. if the european trade goods are present at ALL camps from a certain date onward, then that renders this metric MORE reliable, not less.

analogy:
let's say i declare that a certain man does not belong to a certain tribal population, based on the fact that he doesn't have a particular tattoo on his arm.
if i tell you that ALL men known to belong to that tribal population have the tattoo on their arm, this will of course strengthen my inference.
same thing here.

hi,
What about E? how do u eliminate it?
All the premises suggest that the camp became non-operational after 1630s, because no European good was found there.
Hence it was seasonal ...And since it was seasonal, it dates to no later than 1630.
???

hi,
What about E? how do u eliminate it?
All the premises suggest that the camp became non-operational after 1630s, because no European good was found there.
Hence it was seasonal ...And since it was seasonal, it dates to no later than 1630.
???

whether the camp was seasonal is actually completely irrelevant, because the argument focuses solely on the date at which the camp was abandoned. in other words, "dates to no longer than..." refers to the time at which the camp ceased to exist - i.e., the time at which it was abandoned.
whether the camp had been conceived as a permanent settlement or as a temporary seasonal camp doesn't matter; all that matters is that it ceased to exist by 1630. the conclusion is the same.

Can you please explain the argument ? I still can not understand the argument and the can not swallow the correct answer. It would be great if some one could explain in detail.

the argument itself?

it's difficult to "reduce" arguments, since they don't tend to contain a lot of irrelevant information (as opposed to, say, reading comp passages, in which most information is irrelevant).

with that said, though, here's an attempt to do just that.

* there's a camp.
* reliable evidence shows that the camp dates from somewhere between 1605 and 1755. ("radiocarbon dating" doesn't really matter; the point is that scientific evidence has given these dates)
* traders were in the area from 1620-1630ish onward.
* since those traders' tools were NOT found at the site, the site could NOT date from anytime after 1620-1630ish.

that's the argument, in as small of a nutshell as i can muster.

If the European trade goods have been found at all the camps in the region then how come the absence of goods at camp near Dumaw Creek strengthens the argument that the camp probably dates to no later than 1630.

"
analogy:
let's say i declare that a certain man does not belong to a certain tribal population, based on the fact that he doesn't have a particular tattoo on his arm.
if i tell you that ALL men known to belong to that tribal population have the tattoo on their arm, this will of course strengthen my inference.
same thing here.
"

I am not able to associate the analogy above with the question itself , would appreciate if you can help me here.

if EVERYBODY or EVERYTHING in group X does Y, then this is strong evidence that something/someone who doesn't do Y is not in group X.

Dear Ron

Even if i dont understand the answer to said question ( I do anyway) , One thing is certain, to go to a level to which you go to actually break up the problem and explain it is very commendable

U R A MAN OF GREAT PATIENCE:)

Does "1620-1630ish onward" or ,if I go by the actual statement written, "1620's onward" means 1621, 1622, 1623,....and so on till 1755?
and does the statement "date to no later than 1630" means it cannot be later than 1630?

As per my understanding, If both the above statements are true then how is the conclusion possible. If trader's goods were not found at the site then shouldn't the camp be of date before 1620.