Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient city now flooded by the runoff from Turkey' s Birecik Dam, should have been left there. We had all the information about them that we needed to draw archaeological conclusions, and future archaeologists studying the site, who may not have access to our records, might be misled by their absence. Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist's argument? ['The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological.', 'The removal of artifacts from archaeological sites rarely has any environmental impact.', 'Archaeological sites from which artifacts have been removed rarely mislead archaeologists who later study the site.', 'The materials used in the construction of a mosaic are readily apparent when the mosaic is examined in its original location.']