If a large site has an orderly street plan but no public drainage what is the most cautious conclusion?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: Urban planning existed, but civic facilities could vary across sites or regions
The governing principle is cautious interpretation of archaeological evidence. An orderly street plan supports the inference that some urban planning existed, but the absence of excavated public drains cannot by itself disprove Harappan affiliation or prove that no drainage system ever existed. Preservation, excavation limits, and regional variation may affect the evidence. Therefore D is correct; A, B, and C make unjustified absolute claims.
Frequently asked questions
What is the correct answer to this question?
Urban planning existed, but civic facilities could vary across sites or regions
Why is this the correct answer?
The governing principle is cautious interpretation of archaeological evidence. An orderly street plan supports the inference that some urban planning existed, but the absence of excavated public drains cannot by itself disprove Harappan affiliation or prove that no drainage system ever existed. Preservation, excavation limits, and regional variation may affect the evidence. Therefore D is correct; A, B, and C make unjustified absolute claims.
Which subject and chapter does this question cover?
This is a Class 12 History question. Chapter: Bricks, Beads and Bones. Topic: settlement patterns.
Student feedback
Was this question useful?
👍 0 Helpful 👎 0 Not helpful
Yes 0% No 0%
0 responsesStudent Reviews
No published reviews yet.
