Scholars specializing in city development are progressively recording historic construction methods by examining archival municipal documents (such as...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Scholars specializing in city development are progressively recording historic construction methods by examining archival municipal documents (such as Venetian documentation of pile-installation procedures and records from medieval German settlements regarding wooden frame construction approaches). In a particular investigation, building historian Maria Santos and colleagues analyzed records from Amsterdam municipal archives detailing the implementation of timber foundation supports inserted deeply into swampy soil for significant public structures built during the 1600s. Contemporary structural assessment of these constructions demonstrates that edifices employing this recorded pile-installation technique exhibit considerably reduced subsidence and structural deterioration when compared to comparable structures from the same time period that utilized different foundation strategies, thereby validating the inference that ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
builders from other European nations implemented the pile-installation method created by Amsterdam designers following their recognition of its enhanced effectiveness.
the foundation approach employed by Amsterdam constructors in the 1600s delivered both structural steadiness and extended building lifespan.
Amsterdam's archival records contain more thorough documentation of construction methods than the archives of other European municipalities from that era.
while present-day Amsterdam designers comprehend and value the foundation approaches utilized by earlier practitioners, they currently depend mainly on contemporary concrete methods.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Scholars specializing in city development are progressively recording historic construction methods by examining archival municipal documents" |
|
| "(such as Venetian documentation of pile-installation procedures and records from medieval German settlements regarding wooden frame construction approaches)" |
|
| "In a particular investigation, building historian Maria Santos and colleagues analyzed records from Amsterdam municipal archives detailing the implementation of timber foundation supports inserted deeply into swampy soil for significant public structures built during the 1600s." |
|
| "Contemporary structural assessment of these constructions demonstrates that edifices employing this recorded pile-installation technique exhibit considerably reduced subsidence and structural deterioration when compared to comparable structures from the same time period that utilized different foundation strategies," |
|
Main Point: Research on Amsterdam's 1600s construction archives reveals that their pile-installation technique was superior to other foundation methods of that era.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? We need to complete a logical inference based on the evidence presented about the Amsterdam pile-installation technique.
What type of answer do we need? A conclusion that logically follows from the fact that modern testing shows the Amsterdam method resulted in "considerably reduced subsidence and structural deterioration" compared to other 1600s foundation strategies.
Any limiting keywords? None specified.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The evidence shows that when modern engineers tested these old Amsterdam buildings, they found that the ones using the pile-installation technique had much less sinking and damage compared to buildings from the same time period using different foundation methods
- This directly proves that the Amsterdam method was more effective than alternatives and provided better structural stability and building longevity
builders from other European nations implemented the pile-installation method created by Amsterdam designers following their recognition of its enhanced effectiveness.
- Claims other European builders adopted the Amsterdam method after recognizing its effectiveness
- The passage gives no information about what other nations did or whether they even knew about Amsterdam's technique
- Goes beyond what the evidence supports
the foundation approach employed by Amsterdam constructors in the 1600s delivered both structural steadiness and extended building lifespan.
- States the foundation approach provided structural steadiness and extended building lifespan
- Directly matches our evidence: "considerably reduced subsidence and structural deterioration" equals better structural steadiness and longer lifespan
- This is exactly what the comparative testing validates
Amsterdam's archival records contain more thorough documentation of construction methods than the archives of other European municipalities from that era.
- Claims Amsterdam's archives are more thorough than other cities' archives
- The evidence is about the effectiveness of the construction technique, not about the quality of record-keeping
- This represents a trap where students might confuse the thoroughness of the research method with what the research actually proved
while present-day Amsterdam designers comprehend and value the foundation approaches utilized by earlier practitioners, they currently depend mainly on contemporary concrete methods.
- Discusses what current Amsterdam designers do today (using concrete methods)
- The evidence is about validating the historical effectiveness of the 1600s technique, not about modern construction practices