#4 - Concept Reference, Must Be True
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Please post your questions below!
I am confused about why the answer is A and not C. I thought that the passage mentioned the drought as an opposing point to Wheeler's theory.
This is a bit of tricky Must Be True—Concept Reference question, so I'm happy to help clear it up!
I first want to address that the correct response is actually B, not A, but I can see the tempting nature of answer choice C so I want to explain its inaccuracy.
The question asks for what evidence 'directly counters Wheeler's theory,' with his theory pointing to 'a final massacre by
marauding Indo-Aryan invaders.' In order to directly counter such a theory, we would have to be able to prove that the battle/massacre could not have taken place. Not only does the author present the claim that 'there is no archaeological
evidence of battles within the cities,' they also mention that excavations prove that the Indo-Aryans were not even there at the time of the alleged battle.
Answer choice B references the above counter-evidence, which directly argues against the battle/massacre being an accurate theory for the demise of the civilization.
The passage does go on to mention the drought, but in answering this question precisely, the fact that a drought was known to exist doesn't directly counter the theory regarding a massive battle. That's a tricky issue as the drought and other environmental factors (like an earthquake) are listed as possible reasons for the civilization to relocate, but they don't directly argue against the massacre theory as well as does the evidence listed in the correct response of B.
I hope that helps to clear it up!
I thought B was the only right answer, but was hesitant because it asks for evidence. I was unsure if a lack of evidence actually constitutes evidence. I guess in this case it does?
That is totally a reasonable concern to have, as that very issue is often involved in Flaw questions. However, I don't believe here that a lack of evidence is taken to somehow become evidence, but that the evidence mentioned was the fact that "new
excavations show that Indo-Aryans were not even in the region at the time the massacre was alleged to have taken place." In this case, it wasn't a lack of evidence per se, but new claims that show that the alleged battles could not have possibly happened as the alleged attackers were not in the region to do the attacking.
This situation is pretty nasty in that the author brings up both the lack of written evidence and the new excavations, but it was the latter that was referenced as evidence in the correct response.
Thanks for asking a super smart question, having this concern is a great sign you're keeping an eye on logical fallacies all across the exam. I hope this response helped to clear this question up further!
5 posts • Page 1 of 1