Passage Summary: A company wants to pay to fix up an ancient site and open it to the public using current historical theories, but an archaeologist says no because there is still unstudied evidence there.

Conclusion: The corporation's offer to fund the restoration and public access facilities for the archaeological site should be declined.

Reasoning: Portions of the site still contain evidence that has not yet been examined by researchers.

Analysis: The argument moves from a factual observation about unexamined evidence to a normative judgment that the offer should be rejected. To justify this leap, we need a principle that establishes a priority for research over restoration or public access. Look for a rule that suggests any project potentially interfering with unexamined evidence is unacceptable. The archaeologist is essentially arguing that 'studying the unknown' is more important than 'displaying the known.'