Reading comp PrepTest 146 · Section 4 · Question 21
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
With which one of
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
-
AIt could have been Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review the purpose of the paragraph including the line in question, and then read through the context to understand the argument based on it
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Line 6 is in Paragraph 1, and that's where the Author introduced the phenomena/paradox that DSB's theory is meant to resolve. The Author never commits to DSB's theory. That's the context in which the sign for "sheep" is brought up.
Heading back to the line itself, we should remember that we just looked at this section for Question #19. There, we said that the sign for "sheep" was brought up as an example of an abstract symbol used on the clay tablets in Uruk from 3000 BC. This was the "end point" of the development of abstract written language that the passage is meant to explain.
Delving into the specifics, we can see that the symbol for "sheep" has nothing to do with a sheep—it's a circled cross. So it's an abstract symbol that people understood to mean sheep, not a "pictograph" representing it. Let's find an answer reflecting this detail.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 5-8) The passage notes that the sign for "sheep" wasn't a pictograph depicting a sheep but rather an abstract symbol representing it. As such, any abstract symbol that didn't mean something else already could have been used for sheep without any problem. As an example of this, imagine the passage switched the symbols for "sheep" and "metal"—you wouldn't have batted an eye! Since the sign for "sheep" was an abstract symbol, it could have been anything that wasn't already in use, so this is the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
This question ends up being pretty close to a Meaning in Context question, in that understanding what the Author means by "abstract symbols" would lead you to the correct answer—and that's something we already thought through with Question #19! Again, these questions build on each other, and we shouldn't have a set understanding of the passage and everything in it after reading it. Let the questions guide you to what's important in the passage, and then don't be afraid to use your work in one question to help your understanding of another. -
BThe sign gets its Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 5-8) There's no discussion of how the two signs got their meanings, so this answer is out of scope. -
CThe way in which Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 5-8) The passage notes that the circled cross is just an abstract symbol for sheep—it doesn't state that there's a deeper meaning to it. -
DThe way in which Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-19) Paragraph 1 notes that the tokens weren't given a lot of scrutiny before DSB came along, not the abstract symbols of Uruk. -
EThe abstract nature of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. There's no connection of the abstract-symbol written language of Uruk saying anything about their political life.
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
-
Support for A 3 replies
Started by dannyod