Text 1Because literacy in Nahuatl script, the writing system of the Aztec Empire, was lost after Spain invaded central Mexico...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Text 1
Because literacy in Nahuatl script, the writing system of the Aztec Empire, was lost after Spain invaded central Mexico in the 1500s, it is unclear exactly how meaning was encoded in the script's symbols. Although many scholars had assumed that the symbols signified entire words, linguist Alfonso Lacadena theorized in 2008 that they signified units of language smaller than words: individual syllables.
Text 2
The growing consensus among scholars of Nahuatl script is that many of its symbols could signify either words or syllables, depending on syntax and content at any given site within a text. For example, the symbol signifying the word huipil (blouse) in some contexts could signify the syllable 'pil' in others, as in the place name 'Chipiltepec.' Thus, for the Aztecs, reading required a determination of how such symbols functioned each time they appeared in a text.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize Lacadena's theory, as described in Text 1?
By praising the theory for recognizing that the script's symbols could represent entire words
By arguing that the theory is overly influenced by the work of earlier scholars
By approving of the theory's emphasis on how the script changed over time
By cautioning that the theory overlooks certain important aspects of how the script functioned
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Because literacy in Nahuatl script, the writing system of the Aztec Empire, was lost after Spain invaded central Mexico in the 1500s, it is unclear exactly how meaning was encoded in the script's symbols." |
|
| "Although many scholars had assumed that the symbols signified entire words, linguist Alfonso Lacadena theorized in 2008 that they signified units of language smaller than words: individual syllables." |
|
| "The growing consensus among scholars of Nahuatl script is that many of its symbols could signify either words or syllables, depending on syntax and content at any given site within a text." |
|
| "For example, the symbol signifying the word huipil (blouse) in some contexts could signify the syllable 'pil' in others, as in the place name 'Chipiltepec.'" |
|
| "Thus, for the Aztecs, reading required a determination of how such symbols functioned each time they appeared in a text." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: While earlier scholars debated whether Nahuatl script symbols represented words or syllables, current consensus recognizes that symbols functioned as both, depending on context.
Argument Flow: Text 1 establishes the historical loss of Nahuatl literacy and presents competing theories about symbol meaning. Text 2 then presents the current scholarly consensus that transcends this either/or debate by recognizing that symbols could function as both words and syllables depending on their contextual usage.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How would the author of Text 2 characterize or view Lacadena's theory described in Text 1?
What type of answer do we need? This is a cross-text connection question asking us to understand the relationship between two different scholarly perspectives and predict how one author would evaluate the other's theory.
Any limiting keywords? [content]
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Lacadena's theory in Text 1 argues that Nahuatl symbols represent syllables (not words)
- Text 2's author presents evidence that symbols could represent either words OR syllables depending on context
- The Text 2 author would likely see Lacadena's theory as partially correct but incomplete because it missed that symbols could also function as whole words
By praising the theory for recognizing that the script's symbols could represent entire words
- This gets Lacadena's theory backwards—he argued for syllables, not entire words
By arguing that the theory is overly influenced by the work of earlier scholars
- Neither text discusses Lacadena being influenced by earlier scholars
By approving of the theory's emphasis on how the script changed over time
- Neither text discusses changes in the script over time
By cautioning that the theory overlooks certain important aspects of how the script functioned
- Text 2's author shows that symbols could function as both words AND syllables, while Lacadena only recognized the syllable function. The Text 2 author would see Lacadena's theory as incomplete.