Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many cent

Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many centuries during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. The Egyptians, however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B. C. That discovery roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk without first toasting the grain.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two developments were causally related?

Step 1 of any critical reasoning question is to simplify and understand the data being presented to us. When the information is clearly mapped out, the pattern becomes more obvious to us.



Of course, you can’t do all this in the exam, but you get the drift…

Simply put, we have to look for an option that tells us that the discovery of leavened bread and the introduction of a new variety of wheat that does not need fire roasted have a causal relationship. Anything that does not indicate a causal relationship is out!

Let’s check out the options…

(A) Even after the ancient Egyptians discovered leavened bread and the techniques for reliably producing it were well known, unleavened bread continued to be widely consumed.

Nice to know! I personally love unleavened bread so I understand the popularity. But does this show me that the two facts mentioned in the argument have a causal relationship? No. Eliminate!

(B) Only when the Egyptians stopped the practice of toasting grain were their stone-lined grain-toasting pits available for baking bread.

This option tells me that the stone-lined grain-toasting pits were finally available. But this gives me no indication of a causal relationship between the two facts mentioned in the argument. Eliminate!

(C) Heating a wheat kernel destroys its gluten, a protein that must be present in order for yeast to leaven bread dough.

The first reaction that may come to mind is, “So?!”

But think about it…when you heat a wheat kernel, the gluten is destroyed. Gluten is needed for the yeast to leaven bread dough. The argument says that yeast capable of leavening bread was widespread and must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. But even if that were the case, there’s no gluten. Which means the bread couldn’t get leavened, even though the yeast needed was present.

Fast forward to 3,000 B.C. A new variety of wheat is introduced that does not need roasting. This means the gluten says intact and is available to the yeasts. The bread dough gets leavened. Ta-daaaa!

This option shows us that there was indeed a causal relationship between these two facts. Select!


(D) The new variety of wheat, which had a more delicate flavor because it was not toasted, was reserved for the consumption of high officials when it first began to be grown.

The only thing that this option tells us is that this kind of discrimination goes back centuries ! Eliminate!

(E) Because the husk of the new variety of wheat was more easily removed, flour made from it required less effort to produce.

This might be a fact, but it doesn’t shows us that there was a causal relationship between the two facts mentioned in the argument. Out you go!

- Nitha Jay
GMAT Verbal SME
_________________

Y C is correct ? Can someone explain with proper convincing points plz ?

What's the difficulty level for this question? I couldn't figure out what question stem it was?

Tough to peg a difficulty level on questions. This one is tricky but manageable when you understand the question.

Understanding the question type is tricky because the question includes logical words (causal) that don't tie to a question type. The type is actually 'strengthen the conclusion' but the conclusion can be hard to find because its hidden in the question. The conclusion is that there is a causal relationship between the introduction of the non-toasted wheat and bread leavening.

I'll review the options when I get back to a computer.

KW

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

As I mentioned in my prior post, this question is asking you to strengthen the conclusion that the discovery of leavend bread was causally related to the introduction of the non-toasted wheat. Your answer needs to make a definitive connection between those two events.

A - Makes no connection between non-toasted wheat and leaven.
B - We are trying to connect non-toasting and leavening...the baking process after the fact is not relevant.
C - This answer perfectly connects the non-toasting with the leavening. Before, when wheat was toasted, the gluten was destroyed, preventing the bread from leavining. With the new, non-toasted wheat, the gluten is present and the leavening process can take place.
D - This answer does not connect non-toasting with leaven.
E - Again, no connection made between non-toasting and leaven.

[Sorry for the delayed response here, we have a brand new baby at home and he's keeping me away from the computer ]

KW

Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many centuries
during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must
frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. The Egyptians,
however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B. C. That discovery
roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to
previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk
without first toasting the grain.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two
developments were causally related?
A. Even after the ancient Egyptians discovered leavened bread and the techniques
for reliably producing it were well known, unleavened bread continued to be
widely consumed.
B. Only when the Egyptians stopped the practice grain were their stonelined
grain-toasting pits available for baking bread.
C. Heating a wheat kernel destroys its gluten, a protein that must be present in order
for yeast to leaven bread dough.
D. The new variety of wheat, which had a more delicate flavor because it was not
toasted, was reserved for the consumption of high officials when it first began
to be grown.
E. Because the husk of the new variety of wheat was more easily removed, flour
Made from it required less effort to produce.
_________________

as a non native I have no chance to understand the passage. No one knows all the important words like yeast, kernel, husk leavened dough and so on. How is it important to a MBA application test, how good my vocabulary in the field of baking is? I could not use my analytical skills because I just coudnt understand a word of that passage!? Usually I get 80% or more right in CR, but as a non native there is no chance to get this CR correct. Except you work in a multinational bakery I guess haha. Sorry for my comment but it just frustrates me.

Hey, its not necessary to know such words..
just try to understand the logic of the sentence.
Some people, tried making something, but accidentally they made something else.. they didn't know about that, until and unless some other thing came up, which had specific characteristics, one of them is "without first toasting the grain." = heating

C) says, Heating (a wheat kernel) destroys its gluten, (a protein that must be present in order for yeast to leaven bread dough.)

Other choices aren't that closely talking about "heating"

Also, the expert from Manhattan has told us a lot, which can help us eliminate most of the other choices, and understand this question very well

Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread,
Yeasts that can make bread fluffy are common.

and in the many centuries during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally.

For many centuries ancient Egyptians made only non-fluffy bread.

During those times, such yeasts must have been added into bread doughs accidentally.
“must … have been” indicates that this is a speculation.

How come the author is speculating that such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs?
Perhaps because such yeasts are widespread.

Why “accidentally”?
Not certain where the author got this from. Perhaps because the Egyptians made only unleavened bread for many centuries. So maybe ingredients capable of leavening bread were added accidentally. This reasoning could explain the use of the word ‘accidentally’, but I am open to other interpretations as I continue too

How come the bread was unleavened even though yeasts capable of leavening bread were frequently mixed into bread doughs, albeit accidentally?Perhaps something in the baking process caused the yeasts to not make the bread rise. (I understood this idea by relating this portion with the initial part: the phrase ‘yeasts capable of leavening bread’. These yeasts are “capable of leavening bread”. That doesn’t mean that if they are added, bread will rise for sure.)

The Egyptians, however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B. C.
Although yeasts would have been accidentally mixed for quite a while, leavened bread was only discovered later (3000 B. C.). So bread only started rising in around 3000 BC (much later, I presume) for the Egyptians.

That discovery roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk without first toasting the grain.
“That discovery” – what discovery? The discovery of fluffy bread
Around the same time that fluffy bread was discovered (3000 BC), a type of wheat was introduced. (Why are they talking about wheat? Ah! The main ingredient of bread.)

This type of wheat was preferable to previous types. We’re given a reason for the preference – because the non-edible part (husk) of the grain could be separated without first toasting.(‘edible kernel could be removed from the husk’ —> the husk was probably the non-edible part)


Gist:
1. Certain yeasts help make bread fluffy.
2. Such yeasts are very common.
3. Even though such yeasts must have been accidentally added to bread doughs, for many centuries bread didn’t rise.
4. The Egyptians started using a new variety of wheat.
5. This one did not require toasting of the grain.
6. X`Around the same time that the Egyptians started using this new variety of wheat, they discovered fluffy bread





Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two developments were causally related?

What ‘two developments’?

1. Discovery of leavened bread,
2. Introduction of the new variety of wheat.

“the two developments were causally related”

So,

• Either 1 caused 2
• Or, 2 caused 1

Do both these causal relations make equal sense?

• The discovery of fluffy bread caused the introduction of new wheat
• The introduction of the new wheat caused the discovery of fluffy bread

The first relation does not make sense; the latter one does. Right?

Framework: So, after reading the correct answer, I should believe more than I currently do in the notion that the Egyptians discovered fluffy bread because they had started using the new variety of wheat.

Perhaps the fact that the new wheat variety did not need to be toasted somehow led to the discovery.

Let’s see.





(A) Even after the ancient Egyptians discovered leavened bread and the techniques for reliably producing it were well known, unleavened bread continued to be widely consumed.
Incorrect.
Our job is to look for something that indicates a causal relation between the discovery of leavened bread and the introduction of the new wheat.
This option simply tells us that unleavened bread continued to be popular even after awareness about leavened bread had spread.
It does not help us establish the required causal relation. Irrelevant.

(B) Only when the Egyptians stopped the practice of toasting grain were their stone-lined grain-toasting pits available for baking bread.
Incorrect.
These “stone-lined grain-toasting pits” became available for baking only when they stopped toasting the grain. So, only after they started using the new variety of wheat.

So, earlier the Egyptians must have used some other pits, or some other form of an oven to bake bread.

This answer choice only talks about a new source of baking becoming available. It does not mention anything about whether this new source had anything to do with the bread becoming fluffy. So, this one is not helpful to establish the causal relation.

Now, what if the answer choice were:

(B’) Stone-lined grain-toasting pits became available for baking bread only after the Egyptians stopped the practice of toasting grain, and bread baked in these pits leavened.

This answer choice would have been correct.

1. Introduction of the new wheat would have led to stone-lined grain-toasting pits becoming available for breaking bread
2. Using these pits would have led to bread leavening
3. That’s how the Egyptians would have discovered leavened bread
4. So, introduction of the new wheat would have led to the discovery of leavened bread

The original one, however, does not tell us whether the kind of pit in which bread was baked was related to bread becoming fluffy.

(C) Heating a wheat kernel destroys its gluten, a protein that must be present in order for yeast to leaven bread dough.
Correct.
“a protein that must be present for yeast to leaven bread dough.” So, If the protein is not present, the bread will not leaven even if yeast is added.

How is “heating a kernel” relevant?

Oh, the new wheat variety did not require toasting (a form of heating); the old ones did.

The older varieties of wheat had to be heated initially. That would have destroyed their gluten. And that’s why bread wouldn’t have risen, even if there was yeast in the dough.

Now that the grain was not initially toasted, the protein would have remained in the wheat. And perhaps the gluten and the “accidental” yeast would have made the bread rise, leading to the discovery of leavened bread.

This answer choice does give me evidence that using the new variety of wheat led to the discovery of fluffy bread.

(D) The new variety of wheat, which had a more delicate flavor because it was not toasted, was reserved for the consumption of high officials when it first began to be grown.
Incorrect.
Who consumed this wheat does not help us establish a causal relation between the introduction of the wheat and the discovery of leavened bread. Irrelevant.

(E) Because the husk of the new variety of wheat was more easily removed, flour made from it required less effort to produce.
Incorrect.
Ok, but did the new wheat lead to the discovery of fluffy bread? All we learn is that flour from the new wheat required less effort to produce. We do not learn anything about how the Egyptians discovered fluffy bread. Irrelevant.

• Whenever presented with a contrast word: however, but, etc, it is our job to understand what the contrast is. It is not enough to just acknowledge that there is a contrast.
  In this passage, when we relate the second statement with the first, we realise that 3000 BC would have to be a time (much?) later than when they used to make only unleavened bread.
  
• I have labelled the question as a ‘Strengthen’ question on top. One way to look at the question is that the conclusion is in the question stem (The two events are causally related), and our job is to find evidence to support this. However, remember, at the end of the day, our job is to answer the question that’s been asked on the screen. It doesn’t matter whether we can fit the question into a category. In fact, if you find that by categorising a question you might lose some nuance, it’s better not to categorise.

_________________

Bunuel, GMATNinja, DmitryFarber, GMATNinjaTwo, IanStewart, MartyTargetTestPrep, RonPurewal, KarishmaB, KyleWiddison, DavidTutorexamPAL, MarkSullivan, AjiteshArun, EMPOWERgmatRichC, ThatDudeKnows, ReedArnoldMPREP, mikemcgarry, sayantanc2k, TommyWallach, Testluv

does GMAT paper set 19 even exist? at least not here https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-paper-tests-84064.html