Text 1When Professor Maria Santos examined an anonymous 16th-century Spanish manuscript discovered in the Toledo Cathedral archives in 2018, her...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Text 1
When Professor Maria Santos examined an anonymous 16th-century Spanish manuscript discovered in the Toledo Cathedral archives in 2018, her digital analysis revealed compelling evidence for its authorship. The handwriting patterns and ink composition allowed Santos to establish a dating range of 1547-1553, while striking similarities to documented writing samples pointed to a specific attribution. Juan de la Cruz, Santos concluded, was the true author of this significant work, not any of the later attributed writers.
Text 2
Although Oxford University researchers initially demonstrated that Santos's identified handwriting characteristics were common among educated Spanish writers of that era, casting doubt on her attribution method, subsequent developments have strengthened the case considerably. Dr. Elena Vásquez's analysis uncovered specific theological references and philosophical frameworks within the manuscript that closely match Juan de la Cruz's documented beliefs. These theological elements, notably absent from his contemporaries' works, provide compelling evidence supporting the original attribution to Juan de la Cruz.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
By acknowledging the claim's merit but contending that Vásquez's theological analysis offers more convincing support for it than Santos's stylistic analysis does
By questioning the claim's assumption that 16th-century Spanish theological writing was sufficiently diverse to allow definitive attribution
By challenging the claim for overlooking the possibility that theological ideas could have been transmitted from Juan de la Cruz to other contemporary writers
By accepting the claim but arguing that the timeline Santos established contradicts the theological evidence discovered by Vásquez's team
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
Text 1
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "When Professor Maria Santos examined an anonymous 16th-century Spanish manuscript discovered in the Toledo Cathedral archives in 2018, her digital analysis revealed compelling evidence for its authorship." |
|
| "The handwriting patterns and ink composition allowed Santos to establish a dating range of 1547-1553, while striking similarities to documented writing samples pointed to a specific attribution." |
|
| "Juan de la Cruz, Santos concluded, was the true author of this significant work, not any of the later attributed writers." |
|
Text 2
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Although Oxford University researchers initially demonstrated that Santos's identified handwriting characteristics were common among educated Spanish writers of that era, casting doubt on her attribution method, subsequent developments have strengthened the case considerably." |
|
| "Dr. Elena Vásquez's analysis uncovered specific theological references and philosophical frameworks within the manuscript that closely match Juan de la Cruz's documented beliefs." |
|
| "These theological elements, notably absent from his contemporaries' works, provide compelling evidence supporting the original attribution to Juan de la Cruz." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: While Santos's handwriting analysis led her to attribute a 16th-century manuscript to Juan de la Cruz, subsequent theological analysis by Vásquez provides even stronger evidence for the same conclusion.
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents Santos's attribution based on stylistic evidence. Text 2 acknowledges initial doubts about her methodology but argues that newer theological evidence actually strengthens the case for the same conclusion Santos reached.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How Text 2's author would respond to Text 1's main conclusion
What type of answer do we need? Text 2 author's likely reaction/position regarding Santos's attribution claim
Any limiting keywords? "Most likely respond" - we need the response that best matches Text 2's actual stance
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Text 2's author doesn't reject Santos's conclusion - in fact, the author agrees that Juan de la Cruz is the author
- Text 2 suggests that while Santos's handwriting analysis was initially doubted, Vásquez's theological analysis provides much stronger evidence for the same conclusion
- Text 2's author would likely support Santos's conclusion but argue that the theological evidence is more convincing than the stylistic evidence Santos used
- The right answer should acknowledge that Santos got the right conclusion but suggest that Vásquez's approach provides better support for it
By acknowledging the claim's merit but contending that Vásquez's theological analysis offers more convincing support for it than Santos's stylistic analysis does
✓ Correct
- This perfectly captures Text 2's stance - the author agrees with Santos's conclusion but argues that Vásquez's theological analysis is more convincing than Santos's stylistic analysis
- Matches exactly what we see in Text 2: initial doubts about handwriting method, but theological evidence provides compelling evidence supporting the original attribution
By questioning the claim's assumption that 16th-century Spanish theological writing was sufficiently diverse to allow definitive attribution
✗ Incorrect
- This suggests questioning whether theological writing was diverse enough for attribution, but Text 2 actually emphasizes that the theological elements were notably absent from his contemporaries' works
- Text 2 uses the diversity of theological approaches as support for the attribution, not as a reason to doubt it
By challenging the claim for overlooking the possibility that theological ideas could have been transmitted from Juan de la Cruz to other contemporary writers
✗ Incorrect
- This implies challenging Santos for not considering that Juan might have influenced other writers, but Text 2 doesn't make this argument
- Text 2 focuses on the uniqueness of the theological elements to Juan, not on potential transmission to others
By accepting the claim but arguing that the timeline Santos established contradicts the theological evidence discovered by Vásquez's team
✗ Incorrect
- This suggests a contradiction between Santos's timeline and Vásquez's evidence, but Text 2 presents no such contradiction
- Text 2 treats both pieces of evidence as supporting the same conclusion, not conflicting with each other