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.

The OA is B, but I find no ways to eliminate A, since they both indicate that Euro goods had existed in the area by 1920's. Please help clarify. Thanks a lot!!

you have a good point; choice a seems to buttress the argument a bit, by providing additional support for the idea that european good should be at the site.
however
per the directions, you're looking for the one answer choice that MOST strengthens the argument.
choice b strengthens the argument more than does choice a, because it fills in a badly needed assumption. in particular, the argument moves from a statement that no european goods were found at the site to an inference that those goods were simply never there in the first place. that's quite an inductive leap, as not everything that was ever present somewhere leaves a trace; therefore, any choice that fills in that hole will be the best choice to strengthen the argument.

this is precisely what choice b does: by providing evidence that such traces are, indeed, left behind when the trade goods in question have been present, it fills in the logical hole described above.

--

hope this helps. just remember the following:
filling in a missing assumption is considered better than reinforcing statements that have already been posited when it comes to strengthening an argument.
here's the deal, though:

Ron, so surprised that you pop up in the midnight ... My life got saved again. Thanks a lot!!

Why is C wrong?

If european goods reached the camp and people did not consider those good worthy to store, they might have thrown those goods out, leaving the impression that those goods never existed in the camp.

Ron, to accept B, we have to make another assumption that camp near Dumaw creek were similar to all other camps in the region. How can we assume this.

Pathik

i can think of at least 2 reasons:

#1:

read the wording carefully: preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction

this statement carries no guarantee that 'as much as possible' will be successful in preserving those trade goods all the way to the present day, some four hundred years later. the trade goods could have been preserved as much as possible - in accord with this statement - and still disappeared before the present.

by contrast, there is no such problem with choice b, because that choice states that the goods 'have been found' at the sites (present perfect = this is a pattern that continues into the present)

#2:

'the first european trade goods to reach the area' may not have reached this particular camp.

--



why would we have to assume that?

the only similarity we would have to assume is that, IF the dumaw camp had been around after 1630, the european traders would have gone there, just as they'd gone to all the other camps.
that is certainly not an unreasonable assumption, and is just as certainly better than the alternative assumption ("maybe the traders somehow skipped that camp, even though their goods were found at all the other camps").