Reading comp PrepTest 146 · Section 4 · Question 15
Passage
. Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform . have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city . of
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Social Science
Paragraph 1
Denise Schmandt-Besserat argues that tokens discovered in the Jordan river region represent an early predecessor of writing, eventually developing into an abstract system of marks and numerals before becoming signs for words.
Key Lines:
Lines 9-11 - A central paradox/phenomenon is introduced
Lines 11-15 - Another phenomenon is introduced
Lines 17-19 - A scientist's (DSB) explanation for the phenomena/paradox is introduced
Lines 28-33 - DSB's theory is restated/explored
Lines 38-45 - The progression that serves as DSB's core thesis is outlined
Line 45 - DSB's key example is introduced
Meta-Structure:
Phenomenon/Explanation - The passage introduces two different phenomena that the Author ends up showing how one scientist brought them together to form an explanation. The first phenomenon is the "seemingly sudden" development of abstract writing in Uruk (Lines 9-11). The second is the thousands of clay tokens found in the area around 1000 years before the abstract writing (Lines 11-15). Denise Schmant-Besserat ends up tracing the abstract language to these clay tokens, thus showing that abstract writing wasn't a seemingly sudden development but rather something that developed over 1000 years. And, in general, the Author's explanation for a central phenomenon (or two!) serves as the main point of the passage.
Paradox/Resolution - One of the phenomena to be described was a paradox—something "long puzzled" researchers (Lines 9-11). There's nothing additional to be said here other than that some answers might reflect the paradoxical nature of the question being explored. That said, the resolution of a paradox also tends to serve as the main point for a passage. Since the same theory both explains the phenomena and resolves the paradox, it's almost certainly the main point of the passage.
Progression/Development - DSB's theory is that clay tokens developed into language, suggesting that there were intervening steps. Paragraph 3 spends some time walking through those steps, using one specific example to highlight how it worked. We should expect some questions about this progression, and how the different "steps" relate to each other.
Timeline - The passage brings up several specific years and time periods (3000 BC, 3100 BC, 4000 BC; "few centuries"), so we want to have a clear idea of the progression here, as we noted in the last paragraph (Progression/Development). It's also important to note that higher numbers BC are farther back in time (i.e., 4000 BC is before 3100 BC is before 3000 BC).
Last Thoughts:
Note that we split up Paragraph 2 into two parts. This is because there are two "functions" of the paragraph with a nice transition. It wouldn't have been weird for a new paragraph to start with, "Noting that these," and since there were only 3 paragraphs to begin with, changing that up to have four "chunks" won't make it unmanageable while allowing us to better find information as needed. Specifically, the first half of this paragraph is where we'd go to look for information about the earliest tokens and clay envelopes, and the second half is where we'd look for anything about DSB's theory based on them.
Also, this passage seems like there are a lot of little details and differences between concepts that are going to be key (e.g., tokens and marks and numerals and abstract writing, nouns and signs and symbols). We need to be careful as we analyze the answer choices that we're not glossing over this terminology, as some answers might be wrong just because they use the wrong word.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Two phenomenon and a paradox are noted, and they're linked by an archaeologist
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Phenomenon 1/Paradox - 3000 BC: abstract writing seemingly popped up out of nowhere in Uruk
- Phenomenon 2 - 4000 BC: Thousands of clay tokens were made
- Archaeologists - Clay tokens ignored, or amulets, or game pieces
- Denise Schmandt-Besserat (DSB) - Clay tokens are precursors to written word
- Paragraph note
- More on the phenomenon
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- The tokens were found in tablet envelopes, some of which had impressions of the tokens inside
- Paragraph note
- DSB's explanation
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Inscriptions equate to later farm inscriptions
- Explanation - Envelopes tracked villagers' farm contributions
- After 4000 BC: Hundreds of new tokens = specialization of villagers
- Paragraph note
- A progression of developments is explained
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- 3100 BC - Tokens develop into marks on clay
- Few hundred years - Marks use numerals
- DSB - Over time, marks and numerals turn into writing
- DSB evidence/example - 2 jars of oil (development from 2 tokens to 2 marks to 3 signs)
Denise Schmandt-Besserat argues that tokens discovered in the Jordan river region represent an early predecessor of writing, eventually developing into an abstract system of marks and numerals before becoming signs for words.
Key Lines:
Lines 9-11 - A central paradox/phenomenon is introduced
Lines 11-15 - Another phenomenon is introduced
Lines 17-19 - A scientist's (DSB) explanation for the phenomena/paradox is introduced
Lines 28-33 - DSB's theory is restated/explored
Lines 38-45 - The progression that serves as DSB's core thesis is outlined
Line 45 - DSB's key example is introduced
Meta-Structure:
Phenomenon/Explanation - The passage introduces two different phenomena that the Author ends up showing how one scientist brought them together to form an explanation. The first phenomenon is the "seemingly sudden" development of abstract writing in Uruk (Lines 9-11). The second is the thousands of clay tokens found in the area around 1000 years before the abstract writing (Lines 11-15). Denise Schmant-Besserat ends up tracing the abstract language to these clay tokens, thus showing that abstract writing wasn't a seemingly sudden development but rather something that developed over 1000 years. And, in general, the Author's explanation for a central phenomenon (or two!) serves as the main point of the passage.
Paradox/Resolution - One of the phenomena to be described was a paradox—something "long puzzled" researchers (Lines 9-11). There's nothing additional to be said here other than that some answers might reflect the paradoxical nature of the question being explored. That said, the resolution of a paradox also tends to serve as the main point for a passage. Since the same theory both explains the phenomena and resolves the paradox, it's almost certainly the main point of the passage.
Progression/Development - DSB's theory is that clay tokens developed into language, suggesting that there were intervening steps. Paragraph 3 spends some time walking through those steps, using one specific example to highlight how it worked. We should expect some questions about this progression, and how the different "steps" relate to each other.
Timeline - The passage brings up several specific years and time periods (3000 BC, 3100 BC, 4000 BC; "few centuries"), so we want to have a clear idea of the progression here, as we noted in the last paragraph (Progression/Development). It's also important to note that higher numbers BC are farther back in time (i.e., 4000 BC is before 3100 BC is before 3000 BC).
Last Thoughts:
Note that we split up Paragraph 2 into two parts. This is because there are two "functions" of the paragraph with a nice transition. It wouldn't have been weird for a new paragraph to start with, "Noting that these," and since there were only 3 paragraphs to begin with, changing that up to have four "chunks" won't make it unmanageable while allowing us to better find information as needed. Specifically, the first half of this paragraph is where we'd go to look for information about the earliest tokens and clay envelopes, and the second half is where we'd look for anything about DSB's theory based on them.
Also, this passage seems like there are a lot of little details and differences between concepts that are going to be key (e.g., tokens and marks and numerals and abstract writing, nouns and signs and symbols). We need to be careful as we analyze the answer choices that we're not glossing over this terminology, as some answers might be wrong just because they use the wrong word.
Question prompt
Which one of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Social Science
Answer choices
-
ABased on her analysis Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Main Point
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point as we stated it after reading the passage
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
In general, we read the passage with an eye towards identifying the main point and how each paragraph fits into that. And while that's the case here, we have another layer we can use to help us along—the opening paragraph introduces both a set of phenomena to be explained and a paradox directly related to them. Namely, the sudden appearance of abstract writing around 3000 BC (Lines 9-11) and the clay tokens found in the same area starting from about 1000 years earlier (Lines 11-15).
Usually, the Author's explanation or resolution would serve as the main point for the passage. However, the Author is largely absent here. Instead, he presents the explanation offered by Denise Schmandt-Besserat. She argues that the clay tokens were early predecessors to the written word (Lines 17-19), and that the "sudden" appearance of abstract writing was actually a steady progression of increased reliance on symbols and abstraction (Lines 38-45).
The rest of the passage goes into details on this progression and how DSB came to her hypothesis, so our main point is:
Denise Schmandt-Besserat argues that tokens discovered in the Jordan river region represent an early predecessor of writing, eventually developing into an abstract system of marks and numerals before becoming signs for words.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 28-33; Lines 17-19; Lines 38-45) This answer features an absent Author, focusing instead on DSB and her work. And she did base her theory on the analysis of inscription-bearing clay envelopes and clay tokens dating back to ~4000BC. From this, DSB concluded that the "seemingly sudden" appearance of abstract writing was actually the culmination of 1000 years of development starting with those clay tablets/tokens. This answer addresses the entirety of DSB's argument, down to the discovery that led to it, so it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
A lot of these answers are in the ballpark of correct! That's common for harder passages. Difficulty isn't just increased by making the passage denser and on a less familiar topic. It's also in writing answer choices that are more similar and have more overlap with the passage. When you're dealing with such a passage, be sure to focus on the small details in the answer choices to distinguish them, and compare them to each other when you're stuck to see what these differences are! -
BThe discovery of clay Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 28-33) This answer addresses only one point along the development of the tokens into abstract written language, so it fails to encompass the entirety of DSB's argument, and thus the Author's main point. -
CInscription-bearing clay envelopes containing Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 9-10) This answer is pretty good...until the last word. The paradox to be resolved is the sudden appearance of abstract language, not sophisticated crafts. Also, the clay enveloped containing tokens were only one piece of evidence used by DSB—in Paragraph 3, several other types of evidence in the progression of the written word's development are noted. -
DThe inscriptions found on Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 19) The passage is about the development of the written word, not modern languages. -
EThe discovery of inscription-bearing Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 28-33; Lines 36-37) First, the inscription-bearing clay envelopes were not confirmation for DSB's theory but rather the evidence that led her to that theory. Second, the passage talks about the crafts becoming more diverse and sophisticated, not more abstract. Third, her hypothesis is about the development of the written word, which did become more abstract, but not language, which wasn't shown to get more abstract.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
Deeper help
Ask follow-ups on any step
Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.
Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.
Discussion
-
Why is D incorrect? 2 replies
Started by xGrace
-
Started by Ryan-Mahabir
-
Why is C incorrect? 1 reply
Started by Shiyi-Zhang