The passage argues that strict cultural property laws reduce archaeological discoveries because they discourage foreign investment in excavations. From passage: "the downside may be that they reduce incentives for foreign governments, non governmental organizations and educational institutions to invest in overseas exploration because their efforts will not necessarily be rewarded" The author's logic chain: Strict laws -> Less foreign investment -> Fewer discoveries. So anything that breaks this chain would undermine the argument. Think: What if poor countries could get funding without needing to relax their cultural property laws?

Let's eliminate the wrong options: 🟠 Option 1 -> scope-error -> This talks about displaying artifacts after discovery, but doesn't address whether more discoveries actually happen in the first place. The passage is about discovery rates, not display options. 🟠 Option 2 -> actually-supports-passage -> The passage already mentions "To the extent that source countries can fund their own archaeological projects, artifacts and sites may still be discovered." This supports the author's point rather than undermining it. 🟢 Option 3 -> directly-counters-main-argument -> If UNESCO provides funding, then poor countries don't need to worry about discouraging foreign investment. They get international research funding while keeping strict laws. This breaks the author's logic chain completely. 🔴 Option 4 -> irrelevant -> Apologies for past looting don't affect current discovery rates. This is about historical guilt, not modern archaeological research patterns. The key insight: Option 3 provides an alternative funding source that would allow countries to keep strict laws AND still get archaeological discoveries - exactly what would undermine the passage's central claim.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts