Text 1Recent scholarship has proposed that the ancient Mayan civilization reached its peak around 600 CE, with historians pointing to...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Recent scholarship has proposed that the ancient Mayan civilization reached its peak around 600 CE, with historians pointing to theoretical models of population growth and agricultural capacity that suggest this timeframe represents optimal societal development.
Text 2
Any reliable assessment of Mayan civilization's pinnacle must be grounded in concrete archaeological findings. Dr. Elena Rodriguez and her research team have conducted extensive excavations of ceremonial complexes and urban centers, providing compelling evidence that the civilization's zenith occurred closer to 750 CE.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the 'recent scholarship' described in Text 1?
By arguing that more concrete evidence than theoretical models points to a different timeframe for Mayan civilization's peak
By questioning whether population growth models accurately reflect the complexity of ancient societal development
By suggesting that theoretical models of agricultural capacity need refinement before reliable dating can occur
By indicating that the 600 CE timeframe conflicts with established archaeological chronologies of Mayan development
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: 'Recent scholarship has proposed that the ancient Mayan civilization reached its peak around 600 CE' |
|
| 'with historians pointing to theoretical models of population growth and agricultural capacity that suggest this timeframe represents optimal societal development.' |
|
| Text 2: 'Any reliable assessment of Mayan civilization's pinnacle must be grounded in concrete archaeological findings.' |
|
| 'Dr. Elena Rodriguez and her research team have conducted extensive excavations of ceremonial complexes and urban centers' |
|
| 'providing compelling evidence that the civilization's zenith occurred closer to 750 CE.' |
|
Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Two texts present different approaches to dating the Mayan civilization's peak—one based on theoretical models (600 CE) and another based on archaeological evidence (750 CE).
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents the current scholarly consensus using theoretical modeling, while Text 2 establishes that reliable assessments require concrete archaeological evidence and then provides such evidence pointing to a later date.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1's scholarship approach
What type of answer do we need? The author's likely reaction/critique of the theoretical modeling approach
Any limiting keywords? 'most likely respond' suggests we need the most reasonable reaction given Text 2's perspective
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Text 2's author clearly prioritizes concrete archaeological findings over theoretical models
- We can see this in the opening requirement that 'Any reliable assessment...must be grounded in concrete archaeological findings'
- Then the author provides exactly that kind of concrete evidence from excavations, reaching a different conclusion (750 CE vs 600 CE)
- So the right answer should show Text 2's author responding by emphasizing that concrete archaeological evidence is more reliable than theoretical models, and that this better evidence points to a different timeframe for the peak
By arguing that more concrete evidence than theoretical models points to a different timeframe for Mayan civilization's peak
- Captures exactly what Text 2 does: contrasts 'concrete evidence' with 'theoretical models'
- Matches the different timeframes: Text 1's 600 CE vs Text 2's 750 CE
- Reflects Text 2's methodological preference for archaeological findings over theoretical modeling
By questioning whether population growth models accurately reflect the complexity of ancient societal development
- Too narrow—focuses only on population growth models when Text 1 also mentions agricultural capacity models
- Misses the key contrast between concrete evidence vs theoretical approaches
- Does not address the different timeframe conclusions
By suggesting that theoretical models of agricultural capacity need refinement before reliable dating can occur
- Again too narrow—focuses only on agricultural models, ignoring population models
- Suggests refinement rather than replacement, which does not match Text 2's approach of using completely different evidence
By indicating that the 600 CE timeframe conflicts with established archaeological chronologies of Mayan development
- Claims conflict with 'established archaeological chronologies' but Text 2 does not reference established chronologies—it presents new excavation findings
- Misses the theoretical vs concrete evidence distinction that is central to Text 2's approach