Archaeologists have recently found in various grave sites in the mexican state of veracruz , small ceramic animals with attached wheels . At first this find might seem to discredit the belief that the wheel and its uses were unknown in pre-columbian culture .On reflection ,however, it would seem that discovery actually bears out this belief. To be familiar with these toys and yet not to apply the principle of the wheel to daily tasks such as carting,trasportation and pottery-making must indicate a lack of understanding of the wheel and potential benefits.

Which of the following best expresses the argument made in the passage above?


(A) If the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, had understood the principle of the wheel, they would not have attached wheels to ceramic animals.

(B) If the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, had understood the principle of the wheel, they would have adapted it to everyday use

(C) If the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, had understood the principle of the wheel, they would have adapted the idea of the wheel from the wheeled ceramic figures.

(D) Pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, must have known of the wheel and its use because they attached wheels to ceramic animals.

(E) Since the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz did not know of the wheel or its uses, the ceramic animals found in the grave sites must be the remains of later cultures.

every day use implies -> yet not to apply the principle of the wheel to daily tasks (quoted from Argument).

I just feel the options are too close and are not logically separate and distinct. In GMAT like questions, options are distinct, conveying separate logical ideas. I dont see the case. Option C builds or plays with Option B.

Needless to say, I dont like the question.
_________________

Would some one tell me why is B wrong?
I think B and C are re-stating the same fact aren't they. In fact for me B is closer to the argument, construct wise. Experts please shed light on this.
_________________

I came across this question in Kaplan's Verbal Workbook where B (everyday use) is given as the right answer and option C is different from how it is presented here.

Option C is given as:
If the pre-Colombian people of Veracruz had uses for the wheel in their everyday lives, they would have adapted the idea of the wheel from the wheeled ceramic figures.

In any case I think B is correct because the argument does mention "yet not apply the principle of the wheel to daily tasks such as carting, transportation, and pottery" showing that these applications were there where the wheel could be used.

Hi.

Option B for me is the most succinct.

As per the passage, the author wonders why they did not extend the principle behind the wheel to other tasks to increase productivity in every day tasks. Option C lays too much emphasis to the ceramic figures, which is not the point of the passage.

Simplify: C-people were known not to have discovered the wheel. Although ceramic animals with wheels attached were discovered, this does not disprove the premises but in fact proves that they had not discovered the wheel yet. If they had discovered the wheel, they would've used the discovery to benefit from daily tasks.



(A) If the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, had understood the principle of the wheel, they would not have attached wheels to ceramic animals.
With the information from the passage, we can't really say that understanding the principal of the wheel means that they should not have attached it to ceramic animals. In fact, the understanding of the wheel is what's at question here, not whether they should've attached anything to the ceramic animals.

(B) If the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, had understood the principle of the wheel, they would have adapted it to everyday use.
This goes well with our simplification. Keep looking.

(C) If the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, had understood the principle of the wheel, they would have adapted the idea of the wheel from the wheeled ceramic figures.
This also goes well with our simplification. But, what do you notice about the logic here? This says that if C-people understood the wheel they would've adapted, from the ceramic figures, the wheel to other applications (unstated applications). But that's not what the argument is saying. The argument says that the discovery of the ceramic figures proves their ignorance of the wheel because if they had known of the wheel, they would've applied its function to everyday use. While this answer choice technically does use the information given in the stimulus correctly, it doesn't best replicate the argument.

(D) Pre-Columbian people of Veracruz, must have known of the wheel and its use because they attached wheels to ceramic animals.
This is not what the argument is. The argument is that they did NOT know of the wheel, even though the wheels were found on ceramic animals.

(E) Since the pre-Columbian people of Veracruz did not know of the wheel or its uses, the ceramic animals found in the grave sites must be the remains of later cultures.
The stimulus does argue that the C-people did not know of the wheel or its uses, but nowhere in the stimulus does it state or infer the second part, that such and such must belong to other cultures.