The remarkable similarity of Thule artifacts throughout a vast region

Thule Artifacts



First glance

The opening of each answer choice changes significantly. This problem doesn’t have a great initial clue as to what the sentence may be testing. When this happens, pay special attention to overall sentence structure and meaning when reading the original sentence.

Issues

(1) Meaning: explained as

Logically, the sentence is trying to say that the fact that these artifacts are so similar can be explained by, or is due to, the fact that people were moving throughout this region; presumably, they were carrying these artifacts with them. Explained by, however, does not mean the same thing as explained as, which the sentence uses.

Explained as is used when you’re trying to connect or equate two things. For example, compare these two sentences:

A yawn can be explained as a generally involuntary reflex consisting of an intake of air accompanied by a release of pressure (or popping) in the eardrums. (This explains what a yawn is.)

The doctor’s endless yawning can be explained by her lack of sufficient sleep the night before. (This explains why she’s yawning.)

In the problem, the similarity of the artifacts is not a rapid movement of people. Rather, the similarity might be the result of this rapid movement. Eliminate answers (A) and (C).

(2) Meaning / Modifier: Thule artifacts … region

The opening modifier is constructed incorrectly. The word being is tricky to use properly. Consider this incorrect sentence:

The dogs being similar, one explanation is that they are siblings.

When the intent of the sentence is something like The fact that (X is true) can be explained by Y, don’t use the being construction above. In this case, the structure of the opening modifier does not indicate that the explanation in question is about why the dogs are similar. Eliminate answer (B).

(3) Meaning / Modifier: with … being

A comma + with modifier is an adverbial modifier; it refers to the main action taking place in the sentence. Consider these two correct examples:

He jumped crazily on the trampoline, with arms and legs flying everywhere.

She ate too much at dinner, with the result that she suffered indigestion.

In the first correct example, the comma with modifier describes an action taking place simultaneously with the main action. In the second correct example, the comma with modifier introduces a consequence of the main action.

In the problem, though, the comma with modifier tries to explain the main clause; this is not an acceptable way to structure this meaning. Consider this incorrect example:

She ate too much at dinner, with the explanation being that she hadn’t eaten anything all day.

Rather, She ate too much at dinner because she hadn’t eaten anything all day.

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (D) fixes the original meaning error by changing the structure of the sentence completely: One explanation for the remarkable similarity is that people moved around a lot.

The passive structure of the rest of that sentence (there was a very rapid movement of people) will likely cause many people to eliminate this choice. If you did, or were tempted to do so, remind yourself in future: there is nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice. Don’t eliminate just because a choice is passive.

Note: in the first printing of the 2016 edition of The Official Guide for GMAT Review, the question text on page 678 does not completely match the re-print of the same question on page 717. This solution follows the problem as printed on page 678.