It's not "modern thinking", it's logical argumentation.

If you are offering a theory, the proof must be logical within its context. If, as in this example, we say the slots had a specific purpose of holding back the blocks, then there shouldn't be extraneous slots in obscure areas within the gallery.

There should be the right number of slots for the job...otherwise, they were designed for a different job.

Let's put it this way: why would they need anything to hold back the blocks?

In order to answer that question, you have to use a kind of "timeless" logic. I'm only asking that the same timeless logic be applied all the way through the theory being offered. If one is to claim they were there to hold back the blocks, then one must explain why they needed one on top of the Great Step. Clearly, the fact that a pair of slots appear ON the step, and not just BELOW the step, indicate these slots were constructed for a function that was independent of the slope on which they were constructed.

Now, there is ONE piece of evidence that you could use in favor of the "only using every other slot" concept, but it is easily overweighed by the factors I mentioned above. This fact is that every OTHER slot is longer than the ones in between. They alternate in length. Although clearly not a sign of every other slot being used for something, it does have to be taken into account by any theory offered to explain these enigmatic features in an otherwise fairly easily understandable pyramid.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.