Text 1In 2007, a team led by Alice Storey analyzed a chicken bone found in El Arenal, Chile, dating it...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Text 1
In 2007, a team led by Alice Storey analyzed a chicken bone found in El Arenal, Chile, dating it to 1321–1407 CE—over a century before Europeans invaded the region, bringing their own chickens. Storey also found that the El Arenal chicken shared a unique genetic mutation with the ancient chicken breeds of the Polynesian Islands in the Pacific. Thus, Polynesian peoples, not later Europeans, probably first introduced chickens to South America.
Text 2
An Australian research team weakened the case for a Polynesian origin for the El Arenal chicken by confirming that the mutation identified by Storey has occurred in breeds from around the world. More recently, though, a team led by Agusto Luzuriaga-Neira found that South American chicken breeds and Polynesian breeds share other genetic markers that European breeds lack. Thus, the preponderance of evidence now favors a Polynesian origin.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
By broadly agreeing with the claim but objecting that the timeline it presupposes conflicts with the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey's team
By faulting the claim for implying that domestic animals couldn't have been transferred from South America to the Polynesian Islands as well
By critiquing the claim for being based on an assumption that before the European invasion of South America, the chickens of Europe were genetically uniform
By noting that while the claim is persuasive, the findings of Luzuriaga-Neira's team provide stronger evidence for it than the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey do
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: 'In 2007, a team led by Alice Storey analyzed a chicken bone found in El Arenal, Chile, dating it to 1321-1407 CE—over a century before Europeans invaded the region, bringing their own chickens.' |
|
| 'Storey also found that the El Arenal chicken shared a unique genetic mutation with the ancient chicken breeds of the Polynesian Islands in the Pacific.' |
|
| 'Thus, Polynesian peoples, not later Europeans, probably first introduced chickens to South America.' |
|
| Text 2: 'An Australian research team weakened the case for a Polynesian origin for the El Arenal chicken by confirming that the mutation identified by Storey has occurred in breeds from around the world.' |
|
| 'More recently, though, a team led by Agusto Luzuriaga-Neira found that South American chicken breeds and Polynesian breeds share other genetic markers that European breeds lack.' |
|
| 'Thus, the preponderance of evidence now favors a Polynesian origin.' |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: While initial genetic evidence for Polynesian introduction of chickens to South America was challenged, newer genetic findings provide stronger support for the same conclusion.
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents Storey's evidence for Polynesian chicken introduction based on a shared genetic mutation. Text 2 acknowledges this evidence was weakened when the mutation was found worldwide, but explains that newer genetic findings provide even stronger support for the Polynesian origin theory.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
Now that we understand the passage, let's nail down exactly what the question wants from us...
What's being asked? How would the Text 2 author respond to the specific underlined claim in Text 1.
What type of answer do we need? The Text 2 author's likely perspective on Text 1's conclusion about Polynesian introduction.
Any limiting keywords? 'underlined claim' - focuses on Text 1's final conclusion about Polynesian peoples introducing chickens first.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
Let's first think about what the right answer should tell us:
The Text 2 author would likely acknowledge that Text 1's conclusion (Polynesian introduction) is correct, but would point out that the evidence supporting it has evolved. While Storey's original genetic evidence was weakened by the Australian findings, the Luzuriaga-Neira research provides even stronger genetic support for the same conclusion.
The author would essentially say: 'You reached the right conclusion, but there's now better evidence for it than what you originally used.'
So the right answer should show the Text 2 author agreeing with the claim while noting that newer research provides stronger support than Storey's original findings.
By broadly agreeing with the claim but objecting that the timeline it presupposes conflicts with the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey's team
✗ Incorrect
- This suggests timeline conflicts between the claim and Storey's genetic analysis.
- Text 2 never mentions any timeline issues or conflicts with Storey's dating.
- The texts are consistent about the pre-European timeline.
By faulting the claim for implying that domestic animals couldn't have been transferred from South America to the Polynesian Islands as well
✗ Incorrect
- This is about bidirectional animal transfer (South America to Polynesia).
- Text 2 doesn't discuss or suggest transfer in the opposite direction.
- This issue isn't raised anywhere in the passages.
By critiquing the claim for being based on an assumption that before the European invasion of South America, the chickens of Europe were genetically uniform
✗ Incorrect
- This focuses on European genetic uniformity before invasion.
- Text 2's argument is about shared markers between South American and Polynesian breeds, not about European genetic diversity.
- The Australian findings were about worldwide occurrence, not European uniformity.
By noting that while the claim is persuasive, the findings of Luzuriaga-Neira's team provide stronger evidence for it than the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey do
✓ Correct
- Matches our prethinking perfectly - the claim is persuasive (Text 2 agrees with the Polynesian origin conclusion).
- Text 2 explicitly states that Luzuriaga-Neira's findings provide stronger evidence than Storey's original genetic analysis.
- This captures the Text 2 author's position: right conclusion, but better evidence now available.