Reasoning
What would most help determine how wel the discovered artifacts support the hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites? The archaeologists reason that since many artifacts at Avaris in Egypt resemble those from the Canaanite city of Ashkelon in the Hyksos period, Canaanites must have come to Egypt and produced or imported their artifacts there, so the Hyksos who invaded Egypt were probably Canaanites. But there are many possible alternative explanations. For example, non-Canaanite Hyksos or Egyptians might have imported or copied Canaanite artifacts in Avaris, or invaded Ashkelon and made the artifacts found there. Consider the answer options and find one that would most help decide whether the discovered artifacts suggest the archae0iogists' hypothesis is more plausible than the alternative explanations.
A. Whether such artifacts were found might shed light on whether Avaris was inhabited before the Hyksos invasion, but it would not indicate whether the Ashkelon-style artifacts at Avaris suggest that the Hyksos were Canaanites.
B. We already know that the Hyksos ruled Avaris. Therefore, the geographical extent of Hyksos rule in Egypt would not indicate whether the artifacts at Avaris suggest the Hyksos were Canaanites..
C. Whether some other Hyksos city in Egypt was slightly closer to Canaan than Avaris was would not indicate whether the artifacts at Avaris came from Canaan, so it would not help determine whether they suggest the Hyksos were Canaanites.
D. After the Hyksos rube ended in Egypt, it may or may not have continued in Canaan. Therefore, this would not help determine whether the artifacts at Avaris suggest the Hyksos were Canaanites.
E. Correct. Whether many Canaanite—style artifacts at Avaris were produced before the Hyksos invasion would indicate the fikelihood that the Hyksos brought that style to Egypt, which would be relevant to assessing whether the discovered artifacts suggest the Hyksos were Canaanites.
The correct answer is E.
Prep2012-Pack1-CR-045 VCR005479 Medium
Reasoning
What other information must be implicit in the argument if the argument is to justify its conclusion? The argument is that if the government regulates the industry,it will impose its own manufacturing specifications on all the
companies; but the seven small companies cannot afford to adopt new specifications, and consequently they will be forced out of business. This reasoning assumes that the seven small companies would all have to change their current procedures to match the new specifications, or else go entirely out of business. Therefore, look for an answer option that expresses or follows from this assumption.
A. The argument is about what will happen if the government does regulate the industry, not what will happen if it does not.
B. This possibility is certainty not ruled out by the information given--but that does not mean that the argument requires that it be assumed. It simply suggests one among a number of possible circumstances that could help explain why none of the small companies could afford a conversion—if indeed a conversion is actually needed.
C. The argument is about what would happen r the government did regulate the industry, not about whether it will do so.
D. It would be compatible with the argument to deny that the new assembly procedures would be more complex than the existing ones. Therefore, the argument does not require this answer option to be assumed as part of the argument.
E. Correct. The argument is that none of the small companies can survive because none of the small companies can afford to convert to new government-imposed specifications. But this takes for granted that they will need to convert—which in turn presupposes that they do not currently meet the new specifications.
The correct answer is E.
