Text 1In 2018, archaeologists Maria Santos and David Chen investigated the age of pottery fragments found at an ancient settlement...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
In 2018, archaeologists Maria Santos and David Chen investigated the age of pottery fragments found at an ancient settlement site. Using radiocarbon dating on organic residues found within the pottery vessels, they determined the artifacts were approximately 3,200 years old. Their analysis focused on carbon-based materials that had been preserved inside the ceramic containers.
Text 2
A 2023 study by Elena Rodriguez et al. provided more comprehensive age estimates for pottery from the same archaeological site. The team initially used radiocarbon dating similar to the 2018 approach but found inconsistencies when comparing results across different vessel types. Further investigation revealed that thermoluminescence dating of the clay minerals themselves provided more accurate age estimates, showing the pottery was actually 3,800 years old. The team concluded that organic residues alone were insufficient for precise dating of ceramic artifacts.
Based on the texts, if Santos and Chen (Text 1) and Rodriguez et al. (Text 2) were aware of the findings of both studies, they would most likely agree with which statement?
Pottery vessels from different areas of the archaeological site likely contain organic residues with varying levels of carbon preservation.
The organic residues analyzed in the 2018 study most likely did not provide the complete chronological information that the clay minerals revealed in the 2023 study.
Thermoluminescence dating introduces mineral analysis techniques that enhance the accuracy of organic residue dating methods.
Carbon-based dating methods tend to be more reliable for ceramic artifacts than mineral-based approaches in most archaeological contexts.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In 2018, archaeologists Maria Santos and David Chen investigated the age of pottery fragments found at an ancient settlement site. |
|
| Using radiocarbon dating on organic residues found within the pottery vessels, they determined the artifacts were approximately 3,200 years old. |
|
| Their analysis focused on carbon-based materials that had been preserved inside the ceramic containers. |
|
| A 2023 study by Elena Rodriguez et al. provided more comprehensive age estimates for pottery from the same archaeological site. |
|
| The team initially used radiocarbon dating similar to the 2018 approach but found inconsistencies when comparing results across different vessel types. |
|
| Further investigation revealed that thermoluminescence dating of the clay minerals themselves provided more accurate age estimates, showing the pottery was actually 3,800 years old. |
|
| The team concluded that organic residues alone were insufficient for precise dating of ceramic artifacts. |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
- Main Point: Two studies of the same pottery site reached different age estimates, with the 2023 study finding that clay mineral dating was more accurate than organic residue dating.
- Argument Flow: The passage presents two chronological studies of pottery from the same site. The first study used organic residue dating and found the pottery to be 3,200 years old. The second study started with the same method but encountered problems, leading them to use clay mineral dating instead, which revealed the pottery was actually 3,800 years old and that organic residue dating was insufficient for precision.
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
- Acknowledges that the 2018 organic residue method had limitations
- Recognizes that the 2023 clay mineral method provided different (presumably more complete) information
- Represents something both teams could reasonably accept - Santos and Chen would likely accept that their method had limitations given the 2023 findings, and Rodriguez's team already demonstrated this
- So the right answer should acknowledge that the organic residue dating from 2018 didn't capture the full chronological picture that the clay mineral analysis revealed in 2023
Pottery vessels from different areas of the archaeological site likely contain organic residues with varying levels of carbon preservation.
✗ Incorrect
- This suggests pottery from different site areas have varying carbon preservation levels
- While this might be true, it's not directly supported by either study and doesn't represent the core issue both teams identified
The organic residues analyzed in the 2018 study most likely did not provide the complete chronological information that the clay minerals revealed in the 2023 study.
✓ Correct
- This directly acknowledges that the 2018 organic residue analysis didn't provide complete chronological information
- It recognizes that the 2023 clay mineral analysis revealed additional information (600 years older)
- Both teams would likely agree with this
Thermoluminescence dating introduces mineral analysis techniques that enhance the accuracy of organic residue dating methods.
✗ Incorrect
- This suggests thermoluminescence enhances organic residue methods, but the text shows thermoluminescence replaced organic residue methods
- The 2023 study concluded that organic residues were insufficient
Carbon-based dating methods tend to be more reliable for ceramic artifacts than mineral-based approaches in most archaeological contexts.
✗ Incorrect
- This claims carbon-based methods are more reliable than mineral-based approaches
- This directly contradicts the 2023 study's findings, which showed mineral-based dating was more accurate