Reading comp PrepTest 152 · Section 3 · Question 5

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author's correction: New evidence shows that Indus Valley was an unparalleled civilization
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Old belief: Indus Valley was archaeologically uninteresting because it had typical architecture and no palaces or citadels (last sentence)
  • Author's correction: Recent excavations show Indus Valley had a combination of characteristics not present in any other civilization (last sentence)
  • Comparison of Indus Valley to other Bronze Age civilizations:
    • Geographically, it was a larger urban civilization than Egypt or Sumer (first and second sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "without parallel in history" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Support: List of Indus Valley's achievements
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of Indus Valley's achievements:
    • Brick cities on flood-proof terraces with long, straight streets (first sentence)
    • First urban sewer system (first sentence)
    • Possibly featured a democratic system of government (second sentence)
    • Thrived without armies (last sentence)
      • Supporting example: No evidence of weapon production
    • Author's attitude: "masters" (first sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Support: Continued list of Indus Valley's achievements
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of Indus Valley's achievements (continued from the previous paragraph):
    • First to cultivate rice and cotton (first sentence)
    • Carefully organized agricultural system to produce and distribute food (first sentence)
    • Top trader in the ancient world, introducing standardized weights and trading with Mesopotamia (second through last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "carefully organized" (first sentence), "top traders" (second sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's correction: Recent evidence suggests the decline of Indus Valley due to environmental reasons, not an invasion
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • History books'/Wheeler's view: Indo-Aryan invaders led to Indus Valley's decline (second sentence)
  • Author's correction:
    • Lack of written or archaeological evidence supporting Wheeler's view (third sentence)
    • Excavations show Indo-Aryans weren't even present in the region at the time alleged invasion (fourth sentence)
    • Archaeological evidence shows relocation south of Indus Valley (fifth sentence)
    • Indus Valley people probably spread out into smaller cultures due to drought/food shortages or an earthquake (sixth through last sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationships:
    • Indo-Aryan invaders led to Indus Valley's decline, according to Wheeler and many history books (second sentence)
    • Drought could have caused lands to be unfarmable, which would cause an abandonment of city centers, according to the author (seventh through eighth sentence)
    • An earthquake could have caused rivers to change directions and caused migration to the country, according to the author (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "not certain" (first sentence), "lack of written evidence" (third sentence), "no archaeological evidence" (third sentence), "In fact" (fourth sentence), "most likely" (sixth sentence), "may" (seventh sentence), "may" (last sentence)

Main Point: New archaeological evidence reveals that the Indus Valley was an unparalleled ancient urban civilization and that its decline was more likely due to environmental changes, undermining previously held beliefs about the civilization.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 (P1, S3) - Previously held belief and author's correction

P4, S2 - Previously held belief about the decline

P4, S6 - Author's correction about the decline

Correcting the Record: This passage utilizes a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure*. In fact, the author corrects the record twice in this passage. First, the author corrects the mistaken belief that Indus Valley wasn't much to write home about. Over the second and third paragraphs, the author argues that new archaeological evidence shows that Indus Valley was an advanced, expansive, and productive civilization. Then, the author corrects another mistaken belief about Indus Valley's decline in the final paragraph. The author asserts that recent archaeological evidence undermines the long-standing view that an Indo-Aryan invasion led to the fall of the Indus Valley civilization. It's more likely, the author avers, that Indus Valley dispersed into smaller regional societies in response to some environmental change.

When a passage utilizes a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure and the author provides an alternative view to replace the mistaken one, the main point is usually the author's opinion about that alternative view. Unfortunately, the author never summarized their opinion about the new view on Indus Valley, so we'll have to piece together a summary for our author. We wrote that the main point is, "New archaeological evidence reveals that the Indus Valley was an unparalleled ancient urban civilization and that its decline was more likely due to environmental changes, undermining previously held beliefs about the civilization."

*Some may argue that this is a Criticizing a Viewpoint or Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure — understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Correcting the Record Meta-Structure. If either of those designations makes more sense to you, then it's totally OK to go with either! Doing so will yield the same main point and broad understanding of the text we came up with by designating this passage a Correcting the Record Meta-Structure. Technically speaking, when the passage frames the view the author rebuts as misunderstood or ill-informed, it's best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. The old view in this passage is ill-informed since those who held the old beliefs about Indus Valley didn't have access to the author's recent archaeological evidence. If the author otherwise argues another view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided, it's best to consider the passage a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage. And when the view the author rebuts is framed as a criticism, it's best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics passage

List: The predominant minor Meta-Structure in this passage is a list. In the second and third paragraphs, the author list tons of reasons why the ancient Indus Valley civilization was impressive. We summarized each item on the list in the Passage Summary. If you'd like to save yourself some fact-finding missions on the inevitable Minor Point questions, you can try to memorize a few key items. Here's what we recommend memorizing about ancient Indus Valley:

• Good city planners, with nice roads and sewage systems
• Good at agriculture, particularly rice and cotton
• Good at trading, getting as far as the Arabian Sea and Mesopotamia

Of course, if you have trouble memorizing stuff, you don't have to. You can always check the passage to anticipate what the correct answer will say. We'll discuss how you can do this most efficiently in the question explanations.

The author expresses a lot of attitude in this passage. Way more than we usually see in social science passages. The author apparently admires the Indus Valley civilization for its accomplishments. The author seemingly doesn't care for Wheeler's ill-informed take on the Indus Valley civilization's decline. Because the author expresses this many opinions in this passage, expect at least a few Tone questions.