GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: The historical and archaeological site known as Gr

Question

The historical and archaeological site known as Great Zimbabwe was abandoned several centuries ago for reasons unknown. A recent excavation has unearthed local pottery, as well as fragments of blue and white porcelain that are Chinese in origin—the porcelain pieces together form part of a Ming dish that can be dated to the sixteenth century. The dish is the first of its kind found anywhere in the region, but evidence suggests it was placed in its final location between two stone walls while the settlement was active. Prior findings at the site include Arabian glass and glazed Persian ceramics.

The above information, if true, best supports which of the following statements?

The above information, if true, best supports which of the following statements?

(A) The former inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe most likely learned to make glassware in the style of artisans from other areas of the world.
(B) The local pottery was not blue and white porcelain.
(C) The site was one at which extensive trading occurred.
(D) Scholarly consensus that the site was abandoned in 1450 should be reevaluated.
(E) Further excavations will likely yield artifacts from different areas than those already identified.

V33-10

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Hello, everyone. It is always fun when history and the GMAT™ align to provide questions. All of the information in the passage is accurate, in case you were curious. How about we take a look through a GMAT™ lens?

The question itself asks us to provide or infer a reasonable conclusion based on the information provided. You have to be careful not to spend too much time pre-thinking, since you never know which direction the answer choices may take.

The first line of the passage provides background information: the site named  was abandoned several centuries ago for reasons unknown , so we have a mystery on our hands.   The second sentence is lengthy, but it is simple to break down: both  local pottery  and Chinese porcelain fragments were found at the site during  a recent excavation . There is a description of the Chinese porcelain.   The third line dedicates its attention to the Chinese porcelain, indicating that, although no other such dishes have been found  anywhere in the region , there is still reason to believe that it dates back to the time when  the settlement was active .   The final line informs us of  prior findings  at the site.

What, then, can we reasonably infer from among the five answer choices?

Nowhere does the passage give any indication that glassmaking equipment—e.g., kilns—has been discovered at the site. Although it is  possible  that the former inhabitants did indeed become skilled in making glassware in non-local styles, we cannot infer that such a scenario is  most likely . We need to keep looking.

This one requires a careful reading of line two of the passage. Yes,  local pottery  is mentioned alongside  fragments of blue and white porcelain that are Chinese in origin , but does that necessarily mean that the local pottery could  not  be blue and white porcelain? In a word, no. Perhaps archaeologists or scholars could discern from any patterns depicted on the porcelain that one was Zimbabwean in origin while the other was Chinese. The specific mention or identification of the  Ming dish  bolsters such a notion. (One piece of pottery was of Ming origin while the other was not.) This is not an easy elimination in my view, but a close reading of the passage proves sufficient to see it off.

Watch out for pre-thinking traps. This is a well-placed snare. Sure,  extensive trading  could very well have occurred at Great Zimbabwe. (There is evidence to suggest as much in real life.) But all we have to lean on from the passage is the evidence that these artifacts were found there. The trading could have occurred anywhere. By way of illustration, someone walking into my house might conclude, by the same logic as this answer choice requires, that trading of goods from China, Japan, Morocco, Sweden, and any of a number of other places occurred on the premises, but such an inference would be wayward. The definitive  was one  of the answer choice could use a bit of softening up, as in  may have been .

There is nothing to find fault with here. If a Ming dish  that can be dated to the sixteenth century —the 1500s—was found on site, and the third line of the passage tells us that it was likely  placed in its final location between two stone walls  while the settlement was active  , then presumably, the settlement was active into the 1500s, consensus or not.

Just because artifacts of differing origins have already been discovered at the site, we cannot say that the pattern  will likely  continue. There could well be nothing more under the earth—we simply cannot speculate. This should be another easy elimination.

There you have it. The only answer choice of the five that is fully supported by the passage is (D). Remember, an inference does not give you license to read between the lines. Rather, you want to approach the question in the same way you would any other: stick to the information presented and do not chase correct answers, but go with the safest, hardest-to-argue-against answer choice instead.

Happy studies, everyone.

- Andrew

sumitkrocks · Answer

(D)  is the answer IMO

The above information, if true, best supports which of the following statements?

(A) The former inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe most likely learned to make glassware in the style of artisans from other areas of the world.

There is no such fact presented in the argument that inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe made glassware - Eliminate

(B) The local pottery was not blue and white porcelain.
 We can't say what was the color as we only know unearthed local pottery was unearthed - Eliminate

(C) The site was one at which extensive trading occurred.
 WE know that there are some fragments of blue and white porcelain that are Chinese in origin and Prior findings at the site include Arabian glass and glazed Persian ceramics, but all this combined we can't say the site was a place where extensive trading happened 
;In various other ways these things could have been brought there other than trading -Eliminate

(D) Scholarly consensus that the site was abandoned in 1450 should be reevaluated.
 Yes, We know the Ming dish, Chinese origin, dated to the sixteenth century and it was placed in its final location between two stone walls while the settlement was active.
So there must be live people there after 16th century - Correct choice

(E) Further excavations will likely yield artifacts from different areas than those already identified.
 We do not have any evidence to back this option -Eliminate

VirFortis · Answer

GZ -> abandoned centuries ago -> excavations found -> dish(dated 16th century), other glass material, items.

What is supported with the given info -> Let's go through the options :

glassware of Chinese origin is found, but no indication that it was made in GZ so, assuming that they learnt from the world, is too far-fetched. Eliminate.
 
Could be, nothing in the prompt suggests against the possibility. In fact, it says nothing about it, in particular. Eliminate.
 
The reason behind the findings cannot be established by the given prompt. There could be 10 different reasons for it to be there. GZ - learnt and placed there, that site was where the plants were created, people from the world came there and placed those items there, a group of pirates hid the items, it is the treasure that Luffy is trying to find to become the pirate king, I hope you get the idea. Eliminate.
 
Okay, this is new information - we knew GZ was abandoned - now we know the when. But the prompt said that a dish was found with origin during the 16th century - so maybe the consensus missed something. Re-evaluation should be done. Keep.
 
Who knows? At least the prompt doesn't. Though, let's imagine a bit more on the pirate king thing. Eliminate.

Ans. D.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) The former inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe most likely learned to make glassware in the style of artisans from other areas of the world. May be not there is a possibility that these were traded (B) The local pottery was not blue and white porcelain. This too cannot be verified even though it states in the passage that the artifacts had chinese origin we cannot be sure that these were not adapted to the local pottery (C) The site was one at which extensive trading occurred. We cannot surely pin down the claim since there is a possibility they created all these artifacts on their own (D) Scholarly consensus that the site was abandoned in 1450 should be reevaluated. Since it had artificats that orginated in the 16th century cannot have arrived earlier since time travle was not found

therefore this can be infered (E) Further excavations will likely yield artifacts from different areas than those already identified. We cannot possibly conclude since there are chances that all the artifacts were already found Therefore IMO D

cs15811581 · Answer

The historical and archaeological site known as Great Zimbabwe was abandoned several centuries ago for reasons unknown. A recent excavation has unearthed local pottery, as well as fragments of blue and white porcelain that are Chinese in origin—the porcelain pieces together form part of a Ming dish that can be dated to the sixteenth century. The dish is the first of its kind found anywhere in the region, but evidence suggests it was placed in its final location between two stone walls while the settlement was active. Prior findings at the site include Arabian glass and glazed Persian ceramics.

The above information, if true, best supports which of the following statements?

The above information, if true, best supports which of the following statements?

(A) The former inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe most likely learned to make glassware in the style of artisans from other areas of the world.
 Nothing in the para suggests that.

(B) The local pottery was not blue and white porcelain.
 Again, the para just says that blue and white porcelain are of Chinese origin. It does not mean that local pottery could not be blue and white porcelain.

(C) The site was one at which extensive trading occurred.
 Finding of few artifacts can not be extrapolated to excessive trade.

(D) Scholarly consensus that the site was abandoned in 1450 should be reevaluated.
 CORRECT. The line  the porcelain pieces together form part of a Ming dish that can be dated to the sixteenth century.  suggests that the site was inhabited in sixteenth century too.

(E) Further excavations will likely yield artifacts from different areas than those already identified.
 Not necessary

D

JonShukhrat · Answer

We know that the Chinese porcelain dates back to 16th century and it was placed in its final location when that location was still populated. 
Most importantly, it was first of its kind. Keeping this in mind, let’s sort out the choices:

(A) The former inhabitants of Great Zimbabwe most likely learned to make glassware in the style of artisans from other areas of the world.

The key information that probably brings us to the correct choice is about the Chinese porcelain that is not glassware. The only glassware mentioned in the passage in Arabian glass. Yes, there is possibility that local artisans learned how to make such glass at home, but it may well be brought to Zimbabwe from Arabian countries. So incorrect.

(B) The local pottery was not blue and white porcelain.

We have been told that Chinese dish was white and blue, but can’t ascertain whether local produce wasn’t in such colors. This choice leads to think that the origin of Chinese dish was determined by the color of its fragments. However, there can be other signs, such as Chinese writing “made in China” or whatever, on the fragments. In this case, local pottery may well have been in white or blue.

(C) The site was one at which extensive trading occurred.

The fact that there are multiple foreign artifacts in one region doesn’t necessarily prove that they were traded. It can be true that local people simply collected such items when they traveled to foreign countries.

(D) Scholarly consensus that the site was abandoned in 1450 should be reevaluated.

Correct choice because we know that the Chinese dish is one of its kind and thus can’t be produced by local artisans well before 1450. It was probably brought here from somewhere by local people. Chinese people couldn’t populate this site once local people moved out, because in such case the number of such Chinese dished would high. So, there is probability that local people still lived here around 16th century and thus choice D is correct.

(E) Further excavations will likely yield artifacts from different areas than those already identified.

This choice is really uncalled for because nothing in the passage talks about what would happen in the future excavations.

So D

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: The historical and archaeological site known as Gr

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: The historical and archaeological site known as Gr

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards