Text 1Archaeologist Maria Santos and her team excavated a Bronze Age settlement in Portugal, uncovering numerous ceramic vessels with distinctive...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Archaeologist Maria Santos and her team excavated a Bronze Age settlement in Portugal, uncovering numerous ceramic vessels with distinctive geometric patterns. Based on similarities to pottery found at known trading centers across the Mediterranean, Santos concluded that this settlement was a major hub in ancient maritime trade networks, with inhabitants who maintained extensive cultural connections across the region.
Text 2
Archaeological methodologist David Chen and historian Elena Vasquez caution against interpretations that rely heavily on ceramic stylistic similarities as indicators of trade relationships. They argue that such analyses often overlook alternative explanations for shared design elements, including independent invention, local adaptation of techniques, and temporary cultural exchanges that don't necessarily indicate sustained commercial activity.
Based on the texts, how would Chen and Vasquez (Text 2) most likely characterize the conclusion presented in Text 1?
As questionable, because it assumes that ceramic stylistic similarities necessarily indicate sustained trade relationships
As innovative, because it's the first study to systematically compare Mediterranean pottery styles across different time periods
As incomplete, because the research only examined one type of artifact from the settlement
As significant, because it provides new evidence for Bronze Age maritime connections in the region
Looking at this Cross-Text Connections question, I need to analyze how the authors in Text 2 would view the conclusion from Text 1. Let me work through this systematically.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: "Archaeologist Maria Santos and her team excavated a Bronze Age settlement in Portugal, uncovering numerous ceramic vessels with distinctive geometric patterns." |
|
| "Based on similarities to pottery found at known trading centers across the Mediterranean, Santos concluded that this settlement was a major hub in ancient maritime trade networks, with inhabitants who maintained extensive cultural connections across the region." |
|
| Text 2: "Archaeological methodologist David Chen and historian Elena Vasquez caution against interpretations that rely heavily on ceramic stylistic similarities as indicators of trade relationships." |
|
| "They argue that such analyses often overlook alternative explanations for shared design elements, including independent invention, local adaptation of techniques, and temporary cultural exchanges that don't necessarily indicate sustained commercial activity." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Visual Structure Map:
Text 1: SANTOS'S CONCLUSION - Evidence: Ceramic vessels with geometric patterns - Comparison: Similar to Mediterranean trading center pottery - Conclusion: Settlement equals major trade hub
Text 2: CHEN & VASQUEZ'S CRITIQUE - Warning: Don't rely heavily on ceramic similarities - Reasoning: Alternative explanations exist including Independent invention, Local adaptation, Temporary exchanges that do not equal sustained trade
Main Point: Text 1 presents an archaeological conclusion based on ceramic similarities, while Text 2 questions this type of reasoning by highlighting alternative explanations for shared design elements.
Argument Flow: Santos draws a strong conclusion about trade networks based on ceramic pattern similarities. Chen and Vasquez directly challenge this interpretive approach by arguing that ceramic similarities can result from factors other than sustained commercial relationships, making such conclusions potentially unreliable.
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
- Chen and Vasquez specifically warn against relying heavily on ceramic stylistic similarities as indicators of trade relationships
- Santos did exactly this - she saw ceramic similarities and concluded the settlement was a major trade hub
- Chen and Vasquez would likely view this as problematic because Santos's reasoning assumes that ceramic similarities necessarily mean trade relationships, when there are other possible explanations like independent invention or temporary exchanges
- The right answer should reflect that Chen and Vasquez would see Santos's conclusion as flawed or questionable because it makes assumptions about what ceramic similarities prove
As questionable, because it assumes that ceramic stylistic similarities necessarily indicate sustained trade relationships
✓ Correct
- This directly captures Chen and Vasquez's critique - they specifically warn against assuming ceramic similarities indicate trade relationships
- Santos's conclusion does exactly what they caution against - assumes similarities necessarily mean sustained trade
- Matches our prethinking perfectly about their methodological concerns
As innovative, because it's the first study to systematically compare Mediterranean pottery styles across different time periods
✗ Incorrect
- Claims Santos's work is "innovative" and "first to systematically compare" pottery styles
- Text 2 doesn't suggest Chen and Vasquez view Santos's work as innovative - they're critiquing her interpretive method, not praising her approach
As incomplete, because the research only examined one type of artifact from the settlement
✗ Incorrect
- Says the research is "incomplete" because it only examined ceramics
- Chen and Vasquez don't critique Santos for limited scope - they critique her for the assumptions she makes about what ceramic similarities prove
As significant, because it provides new evidence for Bronze Age maritime connections in the region
✗ Incorrect
- Suggests Chen and Vasquez view Santos's work as "significant" with "new evidence"
- This contradicts their cautionary stance - they're warning against this type of interpretation, not praising it