Hello,
imSKR. I will respond in-line below.
imSKR wrote:
Quote:
Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?
Hi
AndrewN sir,
Can you check my reasoning while solving this question . I stayed at surface wording without deep diving into detail analysis of each option. With this method, I was able to select option under less than 2 minutes. But I did 2 mistakes in reasoning as below:
Quote:
(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century
Metal objects ?
When I read this option, I assumed rings are not part of metal objects, so this option: red light
Mistake: metal rings can be metal objects
Question: How to avoid such mistakes?
Remember that
specificity in an answer choice is often harder to argue against than vague descriptions. As you pointed out yourself, the rings are metallic objects. The passage even goes out of its way to clarify that the discussion is centered on
metal rings. Logically speaking, if such objects were
traded between the two cultures during the time period in question, then it might not have taken person-to-person teaching of those metallurgical techniques for Mexican artisans to have acquired them. Moreover, regarding your question, keep in mind that you do not have to make an automatic determination as to whether an answer choice is
correct when you lay eyes on it. In your first pass of the five options, you might just want to pick off obvious
incorrect responses. This one, with its cautious language that lines up with the details of the passage, looks decent for starters.
imSKR wrote:
Quote:
(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico.
I assumed the meaning as: ok, Mexs learnt complex techniques from Ecudorian counterparts. Without leaving or not leaving , it does not matter . The option says "learnt", so it matches what I am looking for.
Hence I marked this option as green light
Mistake: the option does not say learnt ,but it says learnt without leaving . Emphasis is on actually leaving , so it doesn't mean they learnt.
Clarification: The meaning should be taken as whole. E.g.: Ram can run on days without rain. But it doesn't mean he ran. it maybe possible that he never ran. So need to take the meaning as whole.
Am I right?
Some guidance to avoid such silly errors.
Thanks !
Yes, you are correct. Whether Mexican artisans learned the metallurgical techniques with or without leaving western Mexico is beside the point. We are merely concerned with evaluating whether the Ecuadoreans had passed on their knowledge to the Mexicans, who then used that knowledge to craft the metal rings in question. There is an English idiom that goes, "The devil is in the detail." You can read about it on Wikipedia,
here. I like to remind myself and my students of this notion when evaluating answer choices. In this one, the detail, the degree of specificity I talked about earlier, works against it (just as
primarily by land or by sea works against (B), if you were even considering it, or
are still practiced... in (E)).
I hope that helps. Work on accuracy first. Efficiency comes later. Good luck with your practice.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.