Reading comp PrepTest 132 · Section 1 · Question 19

Topic: Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Factors in decay; connection; what it can show
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Connection - Dental caries (decay) and sticky carbs
  • Show - When humans went from hunting to agriculture
  • Factors in decay (don’t try to memorize)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Research and examples of connection
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Conclusion - Carbs are linked to caries
  • Leigh - Sioux (meat, no caries) and Zuni (carbs/agriculture, caries)
  • Others confirm

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Exceptions (examples)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Exceptions - Nonagricultural groups who had caries - at more cariogenic carbs
  • Examples - Western North America (stone-ground acorns); Hopi (pinyon nuts and tubers)

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Background
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Ban Chiang skeletons found - 2000 year period from hunter to agriculture

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • A trend is noted and explained
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Trend - More agriculture = declining health (including caries)
  • Why? More sticky carbs
  • Why? Less tooth wear (fiber/grit) that removes fissures in carb diet
  • (Exception - Too much wear causes caries)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Expectation in example from Paragraph 1
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Ban Chiang - Ate carbs throughout 2000 year period
  • Expectation - Carbs should have led to caries

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • A paradox is introduced; potential resolutions noted
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Paradox - More frequent caries in early group despite increasing agriculture
  • Ruled out explanation - Changes in tooth wear (no changes seen)
  • Potential explanation - Diet remained varied and switched to less bad carbs

Main Points:

Passage A - While there are some exceptions, a shift to agriculture and consumption of “sticky” carbs increases the frequency of dental caries in a population.

Passage B - Remains found at Ban Chiang present a paradoxical case where increased reliance on agriculture resulted in fewer dental caries - contrary to expectations - which may be explained by their overall diet and switch from certain carbs to others.

Passage A:

• Lines 1-3 - A relationship is established
• Lines 3-5 Using one thing as a proxy for another is discussed
• Line 6 - A list of factors is introduced
• Line 12 - A list of examples/research is started
• Lines 23-25 - An exception is noted
• Line 25 - More examples are started

Passage B:

• Lines 39-41 - A relationship is established
• Lines 42-44 - Two potential explanations are established
• Line 57 - A paradox is previewed (“should theoretically”)
• Lines 58-60 - The paradox is stated
• Lines 61-62 - One explanation from earlier is ruled out
• Lines 63-69 - Potential explanations are presented

Generalization/Example (Passage A) - Passage A presents several generalizations that it follows up with examples. This happens in both Paragraphs 2 and 3.

Exception (Passage A) - After discussing a general rule throughout the first two paragraphs, the Author shifts to discussing a class of exceptions to that rule.

Overarching Example (Passage B) - Unlike Passage A, Passage B focuses on a single example - that of the skeletal remains found in Ban Chiang.

Paradox/Resolution (Passage B) - Passage B introduces a paradox (“Yet”). According to expectations, as the Ban Chiang population relied more on agriculture, they should have seen more caries. Evidence says that the frequency of caries went down. The passage then rules out one explanation before presenting alternatives as possibilities (“more likely that”).

The two passages both deal with the same topic - the relationship between an increased reliance on agriculture and the frequency of dental caries/tooth decay. And both are largely aligned in that they treat it as a general rule that more agriculture results in more tooth decay (Lines 11-12; Lines 39-41). And neither concludes that this is wrong - instead, they both present exceptions. In the case of Passage A, the Author explicitly mentions exceptions (Paragraph 3). In Passage B, the Author explores an exceptional case (Line 57; Lines 58-60) and presents potential reasons that this case doesn’t conform to the norm (varied diet; switch to less cariogenic carbs).

These passages have a lot of overlap between them, so we should expect more questions about similarities than differences.