Official Explanation:Some ancient pottery that was found in Zimbabwe uses a special glaze that is made from a plant not found in the vicinity. For this reason, some experts have expressed skepticism that the pottery actually was made in Zimbabwe. Instead they suggest that the items were made farther north, in Kenya, where the plant grows in abundance. However, one ceramicist believes that the pottery was likely made in Zimbabwe since many other objects in the area show traces of the glaze.
Which of the following, if true, would most support the ceramicist’s belief regarding the pottery? (A) Thousands of plants are common to both Kenya and Zimbabwe.
(B) Written records from the time the pottery was made refer to its use in Zimbabwe.(C) At the time the pottery was made, it was possible to make the glaze in Kenya and then transport it to Zimbabwe where it could still be used.
(D) A similar glaze can be made from animals that are common to the area in which the pottery was found in Zimbabwe.
(E) Earlier finds in the area have turned up pottery that is inscribed with the name of the potter, who was known to live and work nearby.Question Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: There is an unsettled argument over whether ancient pottery found in Zimbabwe was actually made there. It was glazed with a plant that isn’t found in Zimbabwe, which is the main reason some experts believe the pottery was made in Kenya, where the plant grows. One ceramicist believes the potter was still made in Zimbabwe because other objects found in the area use that type of glaze too.
Goal: Find the option that would best strengthen this one ceramicist’s argument that the pottery was actually made in Zimbabwe, which contradicts what experts think. Analysis:The question asks for information that would support the ceramicist’s belief regarding the origin of the pottery found in Zimbabwe.
Conclusion: The pottery was likely made in Zimbabwe despite the absence of the plant that is used to make the glaze.
Evidence: Other objects found nearby use the same glaze.
Assumption: The pottery could have been made in that part of Zimbabwe even if the plant didn’t grow nearby.
If, as choice C states, it was possible to make the glaze elsewhere and then transport it to Zimbabwe for use there, then this supports the idea that the pottery was actually made in Zimbabwe.
(A) Thousands of plants are common to both Kenya and Zimbabwe.
This is incorrect. This has no direct bearing on the argument.(B) Written records from the time the pottery was made refer to its use in Zimbabwe.
This is incorrect. The question is not about the use of the pottery but where it was made.(C) At the time the pottery was made, it was possible to make the glaze in Kenya and then transport it to Zimbabwe where it could still be used.
This is the correct choice. This explanation would make the most sense, and it supports the ceramicist’s argument.(D) A similar glaze can be made from animals that are common to the area in which the pottery was found in Zimbabwe.
This is incorrect. The question is about one particular glaze, not a similar one.(E) Earlier finds in the area have turned up pottery that is inscribed with the name of the potter, who was known to live and work nearby.
This is incorrect. This has no effect on the argument regarding the pottery described in the argument.Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.