In his 1925 book The Morphology of Landscape, US geographer Carl Sauer challenged prevailing views about how natural landscapes influence...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
In his 1925 book The Morphology of Landscape, US geographer Carl Sauer challenged prevailing views about how natural landscapes influence human cultures. ______ Sauer argued that instead of being shaped entirely by their natural surroundings, cultures play an active role in their own development by virtue of their interactions with the environment.
Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?
Similarly,
Finally,
Therefore,
Specifically,
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'In his 1925 book The Morphology of Landscape, US geographer Carl Sauer challenged prevailing views about how natural landscapes influence human cultures.' |
|
| '______' |
|
| 'Sauer argued that instead of being shaped entirely by their natural surroundings, cultures play an active role in their own development by virtue of their interactions with the environment.' |
|
Part B: Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Carl Sauer argued that cultures actively shape their development through environmental interaction rather than being passively determined by natural landscapes.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes that Sauer took a contrarian stance against accepted thinking, then provides the specific details of his alternative viewpoint about the active role cultures play in their own development.
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
The first sentence tells us Sauer 'challenged prevailing views' but doesn't explain what his challenge was. The second sentence gives us the meat of his argument - the specific nature of what he believed instead. So we need a transition that signals: 'Here comes the detailed explanation of what I just mentioned.'
The right transition should indicate we're moving from general (he challenged views) to specific (here's exactly what he argued). It should signal elaboration or specification, not contrast, conclusion, or similarity.
Similarly,
✗ Incorrect
This suggests Sauer's argument parallels or agrees with the prevailing views. But we know from 'challenged' that he disagreed with existing views. Creates logical contradiction with the setup.
Finally,
✗ Incorrect
Implies we're reaching the end of a sequence or list. But we only have one main point being made about Sauer's argument. No sequence has been established that needs concluding.
Therefore,
✗ Incorrect
Suggests Sauer's argument is a logical conclusion drawn from the fact that he challenged prevailing views. But his argument isn't a result of challenging views - it IS the challenge itself.
Specifically,
✓ Correct
Perfectly signals we're about to get the detailed explanation of what was just introduced. Creates smooth flow from 'he challenged views' to 'here's specifically what he argued.' Matches the passage structure of general statement followed by specific elaboration.