While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:Ancient pottery fragments from the Mediterranean region often lack clear...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- Ancient pottery fragments from the Mediterranean region often lack clear provenance information.
- Determining the origin of such artifacts is crucial for understanding ancient trade networks.
- Dr. Maria Santos and her team analyzed the chemical composition of clay samples from disputed pottery pieces.
- They used X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy to identify trace elements in the ceramic material.
- Their analysis revealed that pottery attributed to Greek workshops actually contained clay consistent with Roman sources.
- The team concluded there was an 85% probability that certain "Greek" vessels were actually produced in Roman territories.
The student wants to make a generalization about the kind of approach used by Santos and her team. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
Archaeological teams have employed scientific analysis to resolve questions of artifact origin and provenance.
Santos and her team determined that pottery attributed to Greek workshops was likely produced in Roman territories instead.
There is an \(\mathrm{85\%}\) probability that certain vessels were Roman rather than Greek in origin.
X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy revealed trace elements that contradicted the assumed Greek provenance of the pottery.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Ancient pottery fragments from the Mediterranean region often lack clear provenance information." |
|
| "Determining the origin of such artifacts is crucial for understanding ancient trade networks." |
|
| "Dr. Maria Santos and her team analyzed the chemical composition of clay samples from disputed pottery pieces." |
|
| "They used X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy to identify trace elements in the ceramic material." |
|
| "Their analysis revealed that pottery attributed to Greek workshops actually contained clay consistent with Roman sources." |
|
| "The team concluded there was an 85% probability that certain Greek vessels were actually produced in Roman territories." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Dr. Santos and her team used scientific analysis of clay chemistry to determine that pottery previously thought to be Greek was actually likely produced in Roman territories.
Argument Flow: The notes establish that Mediterranean pottery often lacks clear origin information, which is important for understanding ancient trade. Santos team addressed this problem by using scientific analysis specifically X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy to analyze clay chemistry and trace elements. Their scientific approach revealed surprising results that contradicted previous attributions, leading to a quantified conclusion about the pottery actual origins.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Looking at our analysis, Santos and her team used a scientific methodology to solve a research problem
- Specifically, they used chemical analysis and spectroscopy to determine the true origins of disputed artifacts
- The right answer should capture this scientific approach to resolving questions about where artifacts came from
- The key elements the correct answer must have:
- Reference to scientific analysis/methodology (not just the specific technique)
- Connection to resolving questions of origin or provenance
- Broad enough to be a generalization, not just about Santos specific case
- So the right answer should generalize that Santos team used scientific analysis to resolve questions about artifact origins and provenance
Archaeological teams have employed scientific analysis to resolve questions of artifact origin and provenance.
- Correct - This perfectly captures the generalization we are looking for
- Takes Santos specific use of chemical analysis and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy and generalizes it as scientific analysis
- Connects their approach to the broader goal of resolving questions of artifact origin and provenance
- Moves beyond the specific case to make a general statement about archaeological methodology
Santos and her team determined that pottery attributed to Greek workshops was likely produced in Roman territories instead.
- This states Santos specific finding, not a generalization about their approach
- Focuses on what they discovered (pottery was Roman, not Greek) rather than how they discovered it
There is an \(\mathrm{85\%}\) probability that certain vessels were Roman rather than Greek in origin.
- This gives the specific statistical result from Santos study
- Provides a precise data point rather than generalizing about methodology
- Focuses on the numerical conclusion rather than the type of approach used
X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy revealed trace elements that contradicted the assumed Greek provenance of the pottery.
- This describes the specific technique and its specific result
- While it mentions the methodology (X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy), it is too specific to be a generalization
- Focuses on the particular contradiction found rather than the general approach to resolving origin questions