Reading comp PrepTest 146 · Section 4 · Question 22
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: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Social Science
Answer choices
-
AThe more than 100 Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 28-33) DSB's theory relies on the inscriptions on the envelopes, not on the uniformity of the envelopes themselves. -
BIt was customary for Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Weaken
Strategy Overview:
Identify the conclusion we're meant to weaken, the evidence it relies on, and then find an answer that drives a wedge between them
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Always head back to the passage for questions with line cites. This question shows why. We know that DSB's overall theory is that the clay tablets developed, over 1000 years, into an abstract written language. However, this question doesn't ask about that theory—rather, it asks about the theory that the clay envelopes with tokens inside contained official records of villagers' contributions to temple-based agricultural pools.
What's that based on? The inscriptions on the outer clay envelopes are traceable to later, known inscriptions of farm products (Lines 28-30).
Let's find an answer that calls this evidence or the conclusion into question.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 30-33) DSB theorizes that the inscribed envelopes with tokens inside traced the contributions people made to temple pools. If it was customary for people to use tokens and envelopes to track transactions between themselves, then that means the envelopes/tokens could have been for that purpose instead of for the one DSB theorizes. In proposing an alternative explanation, this answer weakens DSB's argument, so it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Always be sure to head back to the passage when a line is cited. Here, it would have been easy to think you were tasked with weakening DSB's overall theory, but the question actually asked about a sub-theory that she proposed. -
CThe tablets marked in Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 33) The theory in question is about the 4000 BC time period, so what happened over 1000 years later is out of scope. -
DThere is no archaeological Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 25-28) While they may not have necessarily been meant for this purpose, many were discovered in these inscribed envelopes, and DSB's theory is meant to explain them. -
EVillagers were required not Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 25-28) That something else was also accounted for doesn't in any way weaken an argument about whether the inscriptions that match up with later agricultural symbols were used at the time to track agricultural products. This answer assumes that these things were tracked, which lines up with DSB's argument.
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 not D? 1 reply
Started by lritz
-
Started by Ryan-Mahabir
-
Please Explain 4 replies
Started by rmkrutz@crimson.ua.edu