V33-10

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?

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.

Bunuel · Answer

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

Heix · Answer

I did not quite understand the solution. couldn't understand why d is the right option will you explain in a simpler way

popcorn98 · Answer

I did not quite understand the solution. firstly, if the local pottery had any blue or white porcelain, why would it be mentioned separately in the passage? the words "as well as" indicates that they were excavated in addition "to" the local pottery.

secondly, no where in the passage are we hinted:1)what's the duration of an active settlement? because the passage only states that it dates back to 16th century and 1450 is 15th century. Additionally no where is the passage hinting that there is a need for reevaluation or they are not satisfied with the prior findings or are interested in finding more.

how will i infer that in the real exam?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  popcorn98  let me try to help

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?

Looking at the highlighted part we can form the structure - The site was abandoned centuries ago. An excavation found a Chinese Ming dish dating to the  16th century  (the 1500s). Evidence proves the settlement was  active  when this dish was placed there. Other foreign items (Arabian glass, Persian ceramics) have been found there.

If a physical object was created in the 16th century (1500–1599), it is physically impossible for that object to exist in the 14th or 15th century. Because the text explicitly states the settlement was still active when this 16th-century dish was placed there, the settlement must have been active at some point during or after the 1500s.

D. Scholarly consensus that the site was abandoned in 1450 should be reevaluated. The year 1450 is in the 15th century. Our facts establish that the settlement was active when a  16th-century  dish was placed there. A settlement cannot be abandoned in 1450 if its inhabitants are placing 1500s-era dishes into its stone walls. Therefore, any consensus claiming a 1450 abandonment is mathematically impossible based on the text and must be reevaluated.

Hope this helps

V33-10

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