V33-10

Official Solution:


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?


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.


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.


Answer: D