With their distinctive cone shapes and steeply sloping sides, the volcanoes Hverfjall (Iceland) and Toliman (Guatemala) may look similar from...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
With their distinctive cone shapes and steeply sloping sides, the volcanoes Hverfjall (Iceland) and Toliman (Guatemala) may look similar from afar. Tehnuka Ilanko and other volcanologists, ______ can tell by how each was formed that Hverfjall is a cinder cone volcano, while Toliman is a composite volcano.
Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?
for example,
in addition,
therefore,
though,
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'With their distinctive cone shapes and steeply sloping sides, the volcanoes Hverfjall (Iceland) and Toliman (Guatemala) may look similar from afar.' |
|
| [MISSING TRANSITION] |
|
| 'Tehnuka Ilanko and other volcanologists can tell by how each was formed that Hverfjall is a cinder cone volcano, while Toliman is a composite volcano.' |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: While two volcanoes appear similar, scientists can distinguish their different volcanic types based on formation processes.
Argument Flow: The passage sets up an apparent similarity between two volcanoes, then reveals that despite this surface-level resemblance, scientists can actually distinguish between them based on how they formed, identifying them as completely different volcano types.
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 blank needs to connect two contrasting ideas: the volcanoes look similar versus scientists can tell them apart
- This creates a contrast relationship - despite the appearance of similarity, there's actually a way to distinguish them
- The connector should signal that what follows contradicts or works against what we just read about their similar appearance
for example,
✗ Incorrect
- 'For example' suggests the scientists are an illustration of the similarity
- This makes no logical sense - scientists distinguishing the volcanoes doesn't exemplify their similarity
in addition,
✗ Incorrect
- 'In addition' suggests we're adding more information about similarity
- But we're actually moving to information about difference, not similarity
therefore,
✗ Incorrect
- 'Therefore' suggests the scientists' ability results from the similarity
- This is backwards logic - their similar appearance doesn't cause scientists to distinguish them
though,
✓ Correct
- 'Though' creates the perfect contrast relationship
- Sets up: 'Despite looking similar, scientists can actually tell them apart'
- Matches our prethinking about needing a contrast connector