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.
答案B
推論：
No European trade goods were found --->the camp probably dates to no later than 1630
選項(B)用所有定年在1620之後的區域都有找到European trade goods來反推沒有找到的不晚於1620
選項(C)指出如果有 European trade goods的話都會盡可能被保存，也就排除了有 European trade goods但已經損壞的可能
我最後是選了C
因為覺得這個跟我認為是主題的部分比較接近
答案選（B）是因為他的選項語氣比較確定嗎？明確的定年在1620，而選項(C)有用到as much as possible嗎？
請教各位NN是怎麼判斷這一題的？
超困惑~~~
