I dont understand how E could be the answer. E states that "it is ultimatly impossible" to tell if a reconstruction based on archeologic evidence is correct.
How is that true. The author of the passage specifically states new evidence could be discored that would refute the theory. Couldnt new evidence come up that could confirm the theory?
The anseer doesnt say it is impossible to confirm accuracy using ONLY archelogic evidence.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 1837
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Lines 47 - 50 support the contention that it would ultimately impossible to confirm the accuracy of the reconstruction. I agree it's probably worded in more stronger way than it needs to be, but it's the best answer available and the passage talks about the many assumptions required for using archaeological evidence to reconstruct history. There's too many factors involved in definitively proving the conclusiveness of the theory.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], xlaosta and 3 guests