Archaeologists analyze the arrangement of ancient pottery shards to deduce the living conditions of past civilizations. Many shards are found in a scattered pattern, which experts believe indicates a sudden disruption, such as an earthquake. This leads to the conclusion that most of the pottery was destroyed during such an event.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

A significant number of pottery shards have been found in areas known for their seismic activity, suggesting they were made to withstand earthquakes.

Studies have shown that pottery can also break apart due to natural weathering over time, not just sudden events.

Experts agree that the scattered pattern of shards can also result from animal activity in the area.

Correct

Many shards found in the same region show signs of having been intentionally broken for ritual purposes.

Archaeologists have discovered that the pottery was made from a material that is particularly fragile.

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 reasoning suggests that the scattered pattern of pottery shards indicates destruction due to a sudden event like an earthquake. To weaken this conclusion, we need evidence that suggests the shards could have been scattered for reasons other than an earthquake. Option C states that experts…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

SHIVANKMar 14, 2025

thank you for sharing

SSep 1, 2024

Thanks for sharingThank you for sharing!!thanks for sharing

9351_ShwetaApr 13, 2024

thanksss

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.