Passage Summary: We shouldn't have moved those old tiles from the underwater city because we already know enough about them, and taking them away might trick future historians.

Conclusion: The mosaics removed from the ancient city of Zeugma should have been left where they were.

Reasoning: Current archaeologists already have all the data they need, and removing the artifacts might mislead future researchers who won't have the current records.

Analysis: The argument concludes that an action was wrong based on two factors: lack of current necessity and potential future confusion. To justify this, we need a principle that says you shouldn't remove artifacts if you already have the data or if it might mislead future researchers. The argument essentially values the 'original context' of the site over the preservation of the items elsewhere. Look for a rule that prioritizes leaving items in situ unless there is a compelling, information-based reason to move them.