A sudden increase in the production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa occurred in the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A sudden increase in the production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa occurred in the tenth century. Historians explain this increase as the result of an area opening up as a new source of ivory and argue on this basis that the important medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa began at this period.
Each of following, if true, provides some support for the historians' account described above EXCEPT:
Passage Analysis:
Text from Passage Analysis A sudden increase in the production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa occurred in the tenth century.
- What it says: There was a big jump in making elephant ivory items in North Africa during the 900s
- What it does: Sets up the key fact that needs explaining - why did ivory production suddenly spike?
- What it is: Historical observation/fact
- Visualization: Timeline showing ivory production jumping from low levels to high levels around 900-1000 AD
Historians explain this increase as the result of an area opening up as a new source of ivory and argue on this basis that the important medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa began at this period.
- What it says: Historians think the ivory spike happened because a new ivory source became available, and they use this to claim North Africa-East Africa trade started then
- What it does: Provides the historians' theory that connects the ivory increase to the beginning of major trade routes
- What it is: Historians' explanation/argument
- Visualization: Map showing trade route opening between North Africa (Mediterranean coast) and East Africa, with ivory flowing from East to North Africa starting around 900s AD
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a historical fact (sudden increase in ivory artifacts in 10th century North Africa) and then presents historians' explanation for this fact. The historians use this evidence to support a broader claim about when medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa began.
Main Conclusion:
The important medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa began in the tenth century.
Logical Structure:
The historians use a cause-and-effect relationship: they argue that the sudden increase in ivory artifacts (effect) was caused by a new ivory source opening up, and this new source indicates the beginning of regular trade between the regions. It's an inference from archaeological evidence to historical trade patterns.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen EXCEPT - This is asking us to find the option that does NOT support the historians' theory. Four answer choices will strengthen their argument, and one will either weaken it or be irrelevant.
Precision of Claims
The historians' theory has two key parts: (1) a new ivory source opened up in the 10th century, and (2) this marks the beginning of important medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa. We need to understand what would support versus contradict these specific claims.
Strategy
Since this is an EXCEPT question, we skip the normal prethinking process. Instead, we need to understand what WOULD strengthen the historians' argument so we can identify what would NOT strengthen it. Things that would strengthen: evidence of new trade routes opening, evidence of East Africa as a new ivory source, evidence that trade didn't exist before the 10th century, or evidence linking the ivory increase to East African trade specifically.
This choice supports the historians' theory perfectly. Finding North African gold coins at a tenth-century East African site, but not at any earlier sites, provides strong evidence that trade relationships between these regions began in the tenth century. The absence of such coins at earlier sites suggests no prior trade, while their presence in tenth-century sites confirms new trade activity starting then.
This also supports the historians' account. If pre-tenth-century North African merchants' letters contain no mention of East African business transactions, this indicates that regular trade with East Africa had not yet begun before the tenth century. This absence of evidence supports the claim that important trade started in the tenth century.
This choice strengthens the historians' argument by showing East African architectural changes in the tenth century that reflect North African patterns. This suggests cultural exchange and influence that would naturally accompany new trade relationships, supporting the idea that significant contact between the regions began during this period.
This choice does NOT support the historians' theory. If documents from before the tenth century already show knowledge of East African animals, this suggests there was already some contact or awareness between the regions prior to the tenth century. This contradicts the historians' claim that important medieval trade began in the tenth century, as it implies earlier relationships existed.
This choice supports the historians' account by providing evidence of Mediterranean influence in tenth-century East Africa. East African carvings depicting Mediterranean-style vessels (different from local boats) suggests new maritime contact and trade relationships beginning in that period, which aligns with the historians' timeline.