120. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period,
also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A)Ceramic ware is not known to have been used by the Mayan people to make agricultural implements.
(B)Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates that agriculture began there around 4,500 years ago.
(C)Archaeological evidence indicates that some of the oldest stone implements found at Colha were used to cut away vegetation after
controlled burning of trees to open areas of swampland for cultivation.
(D)Successor cultures at a given site often adopt the style of agricultural implements used by earlier inhabitants of the same site.
(E)Many religious and social institutions of the Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years ago relied on a highly developed system of agricultural symbols.
Argument Evaluation
SituationRecently, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements have been found in Colha,a location where 3,000-year-old Mayan pottery had previously been found. Theimplements resemble other Mayan implements of a much later time that were alsofound in Colha, and they are unlike the implements used by other local cultures inprehistoric times. These recently discovered implements thus prove that Mayan culturewas established in Colha 4,500 years ago.
ReasoningWhich point weakens the argument? First, identify a crucial underlying assumption. Theargument assumes the distinctive 4,500-year-old implements must be Mayan becausethey are similar to implements the Mayans are known to have used there much later.What if there is another reason for the similarity? What if a culture that comes to analready inhabited site tends to adapt its implements to the style of the residentculture'simplements? In that case, the Mayans could have come to the alreadyestablishedcommunity of Colha at some later point, and the later Mayan agricultural tools could becopies of the earlier culture's tools.
文中的黄色字体部分不是已经否定了这种情况了吗？
AThe argument does not suggest that the Mayans used ceramics forimplements, so this point doesnot weaken the argument; it is irrelevant to it.
BSince the point of the argument is who, specifically, established a settlement in Colha 4,500 yearsago, the evidence that some unidentified people were practicing agriculture there at that timeneither strengthens nor weakens the argument.
CDiscovering how the implements were used does not explain who was using them, so thisinformation is not relevant to the conclusion.
DCorrect. This statement properly identifies the weakness in the argument that the similaritybetween the 4,500-year-old implements and the later Mayan implements may be attributed tothe Mayans' adopting the style of implements used earlier by another culture.
EThat the Mayans relied on agricultural symbols at that time is nearly irrelevant to the issue ofwhether the earlier implements belonged to their culture. To the extent that this is relevant, itvery slightly supports, rather than weakens, the argument; highly developed'suggests that Mayanshad been practicing agriculture for a long time.
文中已经陈述的fact，为什么还能被weaken??已经被原文否定了 还能当做一种未考虑到的情况？？百思不得其解啊……望NN解答！感激不尽~ |
