PrepTest 104
Passage
Passage walkthrough
Topic: Social Sciences
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Lowe's premises on the collapse of Mayan civilization (uses dates that new monuments were created to establish timeline)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Lowe's view on the chronology of the collapse of Mayan civilization:
- Mayans continued to create monuments from 672-751, but they stopped expanding to new territories (fifth sentence)
- Mayans with long-standing alliances began feuding from 751-790 (seventh sentence)
- In Classic Mayan cities, the death rate exceeded the birth rate from 790-830 (eighth sentence)
- New monuments stopped being built after 830, and the Mayan civilization collapsed by 930 (last sentence)
- Comparison to the previous researchers of Mayan civilization:
- Both used the dates monuments were created to make a step-by-step account of how the Mayan civilization fell (third sentence)
- Comparison in Mayan population:
- The death rate in Mayan cities was greater than the birthrate (eighth sentence)
- Author's attitude: "detailed examination" (second sentence); "assumes" (fourth sentence)
- Lowe's view on the chronology of the collapse of Mayan civilization:
Paragraph 2
- Paragraph note
- Lowe's explanation of the collapse (population growth, decreased agricultural production, too many elites, warfare)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Cause-and-effect relationships, according to Lowe:
- Population growth (especially in the elite class) caused a need for more farming, which caused a decline in agricultural productivity (second through fourth sentences)
- The growing elite class caused increased demands for monuments and luxuries, which caused a need for laborers who would otherwise be working in agricultural fields (fifth sentence)
- Both caused Mayan states to war over laborers and food, which caused refugees to flee and the domino-like collapse of different Mayan states (sixth and last sentences)
- Author's attitude: "plausible explanation" (first sentence)
- Cause-and-effect relationships, according to Lowe:
Paragraph 3
- Paragraph note
- Author on Lowe's explanation (difficult to know whether his data are accurate)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Author's view:
- Lowe's explanation assumes that he's correct about the timeline, but it's difficult to know whether he actually is (first and second sentences)
- Better data could come out and alter our understanding of the timeline and undermine his explanation (third sentence)
- Example of how better data could undermine Lowe's explanation, according to the author:
- If someone proves that Mayans stuck around at sites long after they stopped carving new monuments, that would disprove his assumption that the end of new monuments meant that Mayan abandoned sites (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "central flaw" (first sentence); "rests on the assumption" (first sentence); "difficult to know" (second sentence); "especially" (second sentence); "a hypothesis can be tested only against the best available data" (second sentence); "quite possible" (third sentence); "might be radically altered by better data" (third sentence); "might well be disproved" (last sentence)
- Author's view:
Main Point: John Lowe establishes a plausible explanation of how the Classic Mayan civilization collapsed based on a detailed examination of the archaeological record, but this explanation could be undermined or altered by better data.
Key Lines?Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 (P1, S3) - Lowe's assumption
P2, S2 - Lowe's explanation introduced
P3, S2-3 - Author's commentary on Lowe's explanation
Meta-Structure?Phenomenon/Explanation - The Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structure best fits this passage.* In such a passage, the author will describe a fact, behavior, or situation before outlining one or more explanations of that fact, behavior, or situation. Here, the author describes Lowe's take on the fall of the Classic Mayan civilization (we'll refer to this as the "Mayan civilization" moving forward) before describing and commenting on Lowe's explanation of that fall.
The main point is generally the explanation when a passage utilizes a Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structure. However, if the author quibbles with the explanation, then the main point the author's opinion of the explanation. Here, the author calls the explanation "plausible" (P2, S1) before commenting on its "central flaw" (P3, S1). So, we incorporated the author's commentary into our anticipated main point.
*You certainly could have called this a Question/Answer passage. You could have even used a Critical Meta-Structure, like Criticizing a Viewpoint or Correcting the Record. That said, even though this passage starts like a Reporting a Viewpoint passage, the author's commentary in the last paragraph makes that Meta-Structure an inapt description of this passage.
Cause and effect: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure in the passage is the cause-and-effect chain the author describes in the second paragraph. Just to simplify those for us, we outlined these relationships here:
- Population Growth → Increased Farming Needs → Decreased Agricultural Productivity → Warfare Over Food and Laborers
- Population Growth Among Elites → More Laborers for Monuments and Luxuries → Decreased Labor Available for Farming → Warfare Over Food and Laborers
Last Thoughts?
This is a detail-heavy passage, no? I mean, there’s a long chronology of the fall of the Mayan civilization and many cause-and-effect relationships that posit how the civilization fell. So we should definitley expect a lot of Minor Point questions, right? Well, keep this in mind when you read the “Key Takeaway” for the last question.
Question prompt
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
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
Adaringly innovative but flawed
Why choice A is not credited
(A) Does this sound like "plausible but potentially flawed" or something similarly ambivalent?
This is definitely ambivalent, and "flawed" sounds pretty good. But "daringly innovative"? We didn't see anything that positive in our review of the author's attitude. In fact, we didn't see any statements about how unique or ingenious Lowe's chronology is. While some cautious test-takers may keep this as a contender, we can safely eliminate it. If there were tonal words that suggested the author thought Lowe's chronology was "daringly innovative," we would have highlighted them!
In fact, if you had to review to eliminate (A), you might find that the author notes that Lowe's study, "like previous investigators," uses the dates the Mayans constructed monuments to establish the chronology (P1, S3). That confirms that the author does not believe Lowe's chronology is innovative, much less daringly innovative.
-
Bgenerally accepted but questionable
Why choice B matches the stem
(B) Does this sound like "plausible but potentially flawed" or something similarly ambivalent?
Yeah, this is pretty close. "[Q]uestionable" literally means "potentially flawed," so the second part of our anticipation is covered. While "plausible" and "generally accepted" are not exact matches, they both capture the author's tentatively positive feelings towards Lowe's chronology.
That said, "plausible" and "generally accepted" are not synonyms, so it would be reckless to pick (B) without either confirming that the passage supports "generally accepted" or eliminating the remaining choices. And, because these answer choices are so brief, it's probably faster to assess (C) through (E) to see whether there's a closer match to "plausible but potentially flawed."
However, if you wanted to check the passage to see whether "generally accepted" is supported, you can find corroborating text. In the first paragraph, the author says that Lowe's study, "like previous investigators," uses the dates monuments were constructed to make his chronology (P1, S3). (Highlighting this comparison, one of our minor Meta-Structures, would help us find this text.) If Lowe's study is detailed but based on the same archaeological record other investigators used, it stands to reason that other investigators generally accept his chronology. That gives us enough support to select (B).
-
Cvery reliable but outdated
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Does this sound like "plausible but potentially flawed" or something similarly ambivalent?
No. "Very reliable" is a bit too strongly positive — it doesn't match the author's ambivalent feelings. Further, nothing we reviewed in the author's tonal statements or main point suggested that Lowe's chronology is "outdated." We can cross off (C) confidently.
-
Dunscientific but effective
Why choice D is not credited
(D) Does this sound like "plausible but potentially flawed" or something similarly ambivalent?
Nope. Nothing we reviewed in the author's tonal statements or main point suggested that Lowe's approach was "unscientific." Quite the opposite — the author said Lowe's based his chronology on a "detailed examination of the known archaeological record" (P1, S2). So we can eliminate (D).
-
Eunconventional but brilliant
Why choice E is not credited
(E) Does this sound like "plausible but potentially flawed" or something similarly ambivalent?
Not exactly. "Brilliant" is too strongly positive for this author. Further, we didn't review any tonal statements that would indicate that the author thought Lowe's chronology was "unconventional." That's enough to cross off (E).
In fact, if you had to review to eliminate (E), you might find that the author notes that Lowe's study, "like previous investigators," uses the dates the Mayans constructed monuments to establish his chronology (P1, S3). Accordingly, the author must find Lowe's chronology conventional.
What this tests
Discussion
-
I am just confused 0 replies
Started by Tiffanysara
-
Explanation 1 reply
Started by awilson