During the ten years from 1895 to 1905,our conception of the beginning

1. What is the primary purpose of the author in writing the passage?

(A) To state that the awareness of Egyptian prehistoric antiquities changed drastically in the period from 1895 to 1905
Passage takes off with the line - During the ten years from 1895 to 1905, our conception of the beginnings of Egyptian antiquity was profoundly altered
Then goes on to add - When Prof. Maspero...in 1895...only source of knowledge. But by 1905...the veil...had been lifted. Yet the possibility, which seemed hardly worth a moment’s consideration in 1895, was in 1905 an assured reality
So, clearly the passage is dealing how our perception about prehistoric Egypt changed from 1895 to 1905.


(B) To highlight the contribution of Prof Maspero in altering people’s awareness of Egyptian prehistoric antiquities
Prof Maspero, and his book, was mentioned only one to depict our knowledge about prehistoric Egypt in 1895. The passage didn't even discuss him further.


(C) To distinguish Egyptian prehistoric antiquities from those discovered in Mukayyar and in the Euphrates valley
The antiquities discovered in Mukayyar and Euphrates valley were indeed different from rest of the Egypt.
But the thought was just a signing off note to the passage, I guess, to distract us. So silly of them!


(D) To contrast the knowledge of pyramid builders with those of subsequent generations of Egyptians
Where did that come from?
Nothing about knowledge of pyramid builders or any generation was mentioned.
Ahh! I guess, they had to set some options.

(E) To provide reasons why no prehistoric antiquities were likely to be discovered in Egypt.
The author did list some reasons but it constituted a minor portion in the passage.
Moreover, we have a separate question to deal with that, so for now we can relax!


2. Why does the author mention sites at Mukayyar and in the Euphrates valley in the passage?

Passage reads: ...at Mukay-yar, the site of ancient Ur of the Chaldees...had been found, but there was no doubt...these were burials of a much later date...Nothing that may rightfully be termed prehistoric had yet been found in the Euphrates valley either

Much later date = after prehistoric era.
So, while by 1905. the veil had been lifted and the prehistoric Egypt has become an assured reality, evidences at Mukayyar and Euphrates valley weren't from prehistoric times.
So, antiquities found at these sites were definitely in contrast with those found in other Egyptian sites.

(A) To provide an example of an incorrect prediction that had been made about these two places
Author did NOT make any prediction about aforementioned sites.


(B) To identify the origin of these sites and how the same was contrary to earlier perception
Passage doesn't dwell into discussion of any prehistoric Egyptian sites, let alone these two.
Wait! Why are we getting too many out of scope options. They should value our time. Nuts.


(C) To draw similarities between the discoveries made in Egypt and those made in these two places
180° reverse of what passage states. Easily eliminated.
More like a weakener on CR strengthening question or vice versa!!


(D) To explain why it was impossible for prehistoric antiquities to be ever discovered in Egypt.
Passage discussed these reasons in earlier segments, not the segment containing Mukayyar and Euphrates valley.


(E) To state that what was true for Egypt in 1905 was not necessarily true for these two places
Exactly, what passage inferred.


3. According to the passage, one reason why it was believed that no relics of prehistoric Egypt would ever be found was that:

Passage listed two reasons to believe that antiquities pertaining to prehistoric Egypt couldn't be found as follows:
A. The antiquity of the known history of these countries already appeared so great that nobody took into consideration the possibility of our discovering a prehistoric Egypt or Mesopotamia
B. civilization in these countries had lasted so long that it seemed more than probable that all traces of their prehistoric age had long since been swept away.


(A) There wasn’t enough information available about the antiquities of known history of Egypt.
Passage never said that information wasn't available. It simple stated that archaeologists didn't believe such relics existed.


(B) Civilizations in Egypt had lasted for a very long time, thus most likely wiping out any trace of older civilizations.
Exactly the second reason stated above. We need not to discuss further but for the sake of completeness, let's discuss them.


(C) Archaeologists had more pressing concerns at hand than to focus on searching for prehistoric antiquities in Egypt.
Nothing of that sort is discussed in the passage.
I wish that had been the case, we wouldn't had to deal with this passage!


(D) The pyramid builders and early kings had left no accounts of the period before their time.
No mention whatsoever!
Had I been at Kings' place, I would have definitely left some account to glorify my deeds


(E) Not enough scholars were paying attention to this field.
I guess, everyone of us can toss this up, high in the air.
More of such options and everyone of us will score 800 on GMAT.

Hope it helps.
Cheers