a) "Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755."

- this is what I call evidence A, it is not indispute.

b) "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."

- this a conclusion (in bold) and the additional evidence (evidence B)
- evidence B has two parts too: "since no European trade goods were found at the site" is support for the conclusion AND "European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward" is support for the first phrase ""since no European..."
- if someone were to attack the argument, they will attack the phrase "since no European trade goods were found at the site" because there are other ways for the goods to get there other than by "European traders were active in the region"

c) before I even read the answers, I try and figure out what would strengthen (in this case) the conclusion.

- well the it HAS to concern the presence or absence of European trade goods, since that was the evidence (evidence B) used to arrive at the conclusion. So focus on answers that concern European goods.

- it's sometimes helpful to think about what would weaken the argument, since that is likely a wrong answer. In this case, if there was another way for the European goods to get to the site, that would weaken the argument. However, we want to strengthen the argument, so the right answer will likely provide evidence that will weaken any statements that weaken the argument (if that makes sense)

- for example, I would think "well, what if someone else brought the goods to the site?". Ok, what would weaken that argument? Well, if other local camps didn't have any goods before the Europeans got there, that is pretty good evidence that the only way the goods could have got there is from the presence of European traders. This would support the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site".

**of course, I wouldn't necessarily come to that exact conclusion, but I would be thinking along those lines

This is all BEFORE I look at the questions. It's helps clarify in your mind what is relevant and what is not. You're unlikely to actually come up with the right answer yourself, but thinking in this way will help clarify your own understanding of the argument.

Now onto the answers....

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

This obviously weaken the argument. It is evidence that weakens evidence B

(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.

This strengthens evidence B. If all the other camps in the region had them in the late 1620s, then the likelihood that this camp had them at that time is pretty high. Remember, the basis of the conclusion is that the camp is from before the 1630s because it DIDN'T have any goods. This answer backs up the idea that if the camp was from after 1630, it almost certainly would have contained European goods (just like the other camps in the region). This directly supports the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site"

(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.

Irrelevant. It provides no information on whether the camp in question would European goods or not.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

Also irrelevant. Nothing was said about European explorers, so it provides no support either way.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

Also irrelevant. Whether the camp was seasonal or not provides no support either way.