AdityaHongunti wrote:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/metal-rings-recently-excavated-from-seventh-century-settlements-in-the-20799.html#p2163852
"These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely."
the passage says that independent ( on their own) development in BOTH the regions was unlikely .. now what i dont understand is that if author is saying development was unlikely in both areas then how come is he saying that Equads knew the technique?? i mean did he learn from somewhere else??? because could NOT develop independently... BUt the author says both the regions coudl not develop independently.. this is really confusing me...please clarify,,, thankyou
Let's say there is a dish made using 25 ingredients and some complex techniques. You eat the dish in a restaurant in Sweden. After a week, you go to Los Angeles and you eat the same dish there too.
What would you think? That one of them learned it from the other, right? It is very unlikely that each restaurant developed the same dish independently. Out of 1000s of ingredients, how probable is it that both chose the exact 20 and used each in exactly the same way to get the same result independently of each other? One of the restaurants must have come up with the dish, then a chef from another restaurant must have visited and learned how to make it and then made in his own restaurant too.
That is what the argument is saying - it is too complex. So Mexicans must have learned from Ecuadorians who must have come up with it (since in Ecuador, those techniques were being used before 7th century too)