For each of six archaeological excavation sites, the table shows whether pottery, jewelry, or statuettes were found at that site....

OWNING THE DATASET

Let's start by understanding the table with the intention of "owning the dataset." We have archaeological findings from 6 sites (A through F), with information about three types of artifacts: jewelry, statuettes, and pottery. Each cell contains either "Yes" (artifact found) or "No" (artifact not found).

Looking at the distribution patterns immediately reveals something interesting:

• Jewelry was found at Sites A, D, and F
• Statuettes were found at Sites B, C, and E
• Pottery was found at Sites A, C, D, and F

Key insight: Jewelry and statuettes appear to be mutually exclusive - no site has both! This pattern will be extremely valuable when evaluating our statements.

Rather than manually checking each site for each statement, let's use the table's sorting functionality to reveal patterns visually. This will save us significant effort and make verification much simpler.

ANALYZING STATEMENT 1

Statement 1 Translation:
Original: "Jewelry was found only at sites where statuettes were not found."
What we're looking for:

• Every site with jewelry must NOT have statuettes
• No overlap between jewelry sites and statuette sites

In other words: Are the sets "sites with jewelry" and "sites with statuettes" completely separate?

Let's approach this efficiently by sorting the table by the Jewelry column:

1. Click the Jewelry column header to sort (ascending)
2. This groups all "Yes" values for jewelry together

Now we can visually scan to see if any site has both jewelry and statuettes:

Sites with Jewelry (A, D, F):

• Site A: Jewelry: Yes, Statuettes: No ✓
• Site D: Jewelry: Yes, Statuettes: No ✓
• Site F: Jewelry: Yes, Statuettes: No ✓

We can immediately see that all sites with jewelry have "No" for statuettes. No need to check each site individually - the pattern is clear after sorting.

Statement 1 is Yes.

Teaching note: Notice how sorting instantly revealed the pattern we needed to confirm. Instead of checking each site individually (which would take longer), we let the sorting do the work for us, making the pattern visually obvious.

ANALYZING STATEMENT 2

Statement 2 Translation:
Original: "Jewelry was found only at sites where pottery was also found."
What we're looking for:

• Every site with jewelry must also have pottery
• The set "sites with jewelry" must be a subset of "sites with pottery"

In other words: Does every jewelry site also have pottery?

Since we're already sorted by Jewelry, let's use this view to verify:

Sites with Jewelry (A, D, F):

• Site A: Jewelry: Yes, Pottery: Yes ✓
• Site D: Jewelry: Yes, Pottery: Yes ✓
• Site F: Jewelry: Yes, Pottery: Yes ✓

We can see that every site with jewelry also has pottery. The pattern is immediately clear from our sorted view.

Statement 2 is Yes.

Teaching note: We didn't need to re-sort the table for this statement because our current sorting still makes the pattern easy to verify. This is efficient problem-solving - leveraging work we've already done when possible.

ANALYZING STATEMENT 3

Statement 3 Translation:
Original: "Statuettes were found at each site where pottery was not found."
What we're looking for:

• Every site WITHOUT pottery must have statuettes
• All non-pottery sites must be statuette sites

In other words: Are sites without pottery a subset of sites with statuettes?

For this statement, we should sort by the Pottery column to group all "No" values together:

1. Click the Pottery column header to sort (ascending)
2. This brings all "No" values for pottery to the top

Now we can visually scan to check if all non-pottery sites have statuettes:

Sites without Pottery (B, E):

• Site B: Pottery: No, Statuettes: Yes ✓
• Site E: Pottery: No, Statuettes: Yes ✓

We can see that both sites without pottery have statuettes. This confirms our statement.

Statement 3 is Yes.

Teaching note: Sorting by the relevant column for each statement makes verification almost instantaneous. For this statement, we specifically needed to see the "No" pottery sites, so sorting by Pottery was the most efficient approach.

FINAL ANSWER COMPILATION

After analyzing all three statements using sorting-based visual verification:

• Statement 1: Yes
• Statement 2: Yes
• Statement 3: Yes

Therefore, all three statements are Yes.

LEARNING SUMMARY

Skills We Used

• Pattern Recognition: We identified the mutual exclusivity of jewelry and statuettes immediately, which made Statement 1 verification simple.
• Set Relationship Thinking: We framed each statement as a relationship between sets rather than individual site verification.
• Sorting-Based Verification: We used sorting to group similar values together, making patterns visually obvious.

Strategic Insights

1. Sort First, Verify Second: Always use the sorting functionality before manual verification - it makes patterns jump out visually.
2. Look for Global Patterns: The jewelry/statuette mutual exclusivity was a key insight that simplified our work.
3. Translate Statements Carefully: Breaking down what each statement really asks for helps choose the most efficient verification method.
4. Use Previous Sorting When Possible: For Statement 2, we continued using our Jewelry sort since it still made verification easy.

Common Mistakes We Avoided

• We avoided checking each site individually, which would have been time-consuming and error-prone.
• We didn't create unnecessary lists or tables when visual verification was sufficient.
• We didn't manually track which sites had which artifacts - the sorting made this unnecessary.

When you see binary (Yes/No) data in table analysis questions, immediately think about sorting and set relationships. These approaches almost always provide faster solutions than checking each item individually.