Anthropologist: The ancient Mesopotamian kings allocated significant resources to grand temples and monumental structures, comparable to their investments in agricultural development and infrastructure. This was not simply extravagance; rather, if the subjects of a king could be made to appreciate their ruler's control over the environment, their allegiance could be secured without the need for military enforcement. The assertion that ancient Mesopotamian spending on monumental architecture was not extravagant serves which of the following functions in the anthropologist's argument?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

It is a premise used to justify the kings' allocation of resources to structures that primarily serve military purposes.

It is a conclusion purportedly supported by the argument's emphasis on the psychological impact of these structures on the populace.

It is offered in support of the assertion that Mesopotamian kings invested equally in monumental architecture and agricultural development.

It is a premise supporting the claim that the loyalty of subjects was maintained without reliance on military force.

Correct

It serves as an illustration of the idea that social and political stability can be achieved without coercion.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The anthropologist's argument states that the spending on monumental architecture was not merely extravagant but served a purpose in maintaining loyalty among subjects without military force. The assertion that this expenditure was not extravagant supports the claim…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

PranavMar 28, 2025

Thank for sharing!!!

NaimishJan 27, 2025

thanks for the answer

NurayMar 11, 2024

thanks

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can complete the last sentence of an argument in a way that is logically consistent with it.

Common trap

Choosing an option that sounds plausible but contradicts the argument or introduces new information.