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 anwer is choice B.

How to arrange the reasoning in the argument?

thanks!

我又理解了下, 不知道和你表述的意思是否一致:

Radiocarbon 测试出的结果是date from 1605-1755之间; 通过欧贸产品不存在和欧洲商人开始从1620年间活跃此地推算出camp不可能出现在此之后,所以推测camp截至到date to1630就不存在了. 文中date to是关键.

B support:只要有商贸就应该有remained goods.此处没有说明存在与商贸繁荣之前.

这次理解,不晓得对否?

我选的C，我觉得因为C排出了原来存在欧洲物品但被毁掉了的可能性。也就是说营地里“没有发现”实际就是“没有”,为什么C不对呢？