An 1832 traveler's account of rural Ireland remarks on the use of pottery called "redware" produced by small, local potteries....
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
An 1832 traveler's account of rural Ireland remarks on the use of pottery called "redware" produced by small, local potteries. The traveler predicted that this pottery would be replaced by factory-made pottery. As a matter of fact, economic historians have assumed that all the redware potteries closed during the 1840's. The recent discovery, through archaeological investigation, that redware was still in use in the 1860's does not disprove the historians' assumption, because ______.
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| An 1832 traveler's account of rural Ireland remarks on the use of pottery called "redware" produced by small, local potteries. |
|
| The traveler predicted that this pottery would be replaced by factory-made pottery. |
|
| As a matter of fact, economic historians have assumed that all the redware potteries closed during the 1840's. |
|
| The recent discovery, through archaeological investigation, that redware was still in use in the 1860's does not disprove the historians' assumption, because ______. |
|
Argument Flow:
We start with historical background about redware pottery and a prediction it would disappear. Then we learn historians believe this prediction came true in the 1840s. Finally, we get archaeological evidence that seems to contradict the historians, but the passage claims there's actually no contradiction.
Main Conclusion:
The archaeological discovery of 1860s redware use doesn't actually disprove the historians' assumption that all redware potteries closed in the 1840s.
Logical Structure:
This is an incomplete argument that sets up an apparent contradiction and then claims the contradiction doesn't exist. We need to find a reason why both the historians' assumption (potteries closed in 1840s) and the archaeological evidence (redware in use in 1860s) can both be true. The key is likely distinguishing between when potteries closed and when existing pottery continued to be used.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes - We need to find a statement that explains how both things can be true: historians' assumption that redware potteries closed in the 1840s AND the archaeological discovery that redware was still in use in the 1860s
Precision of Claims
The key distinction is between 'potteries closing' (production stopping) versus 'redware still in use' (consumption continuing). We need to bridge this gap between production and usage timing
Strategy
Look for scenarios that allow both facts to coexist without contradiction. The historians said the potteries (production facilities) closed in the 1840s, but archaeology shows redware was still being used in the 1860s. We need explanations for how people could still be using redware even after production stopped
This choice talks about lack of records about the potteries, but missing documentation doesn't explain how redware could still be in use in the 1860s if all potteries closed in the 1840s. The absence of records doesn't resolve the timing contradiction between production ending and continued usage.
Finding factory-made pottery alongside redware actually supports the 1832 traveler's prediction that factory pottery would replace redware, but it doesn't explain how redware could still be in use after all potteries supposedly closed. This choice doesn't bridge the gap between the historians' assumption and the archaeological evidence.
This choice suggests that mentions of redware only appear before the 1840s, which would actually support the historians' assumption that potteries closed then. However, it doesn't explain the archaeological discovery of 1860s redware usage, so it fails to resolve the apparent contradiction.
This is the correct answer. If redware was exceptionally durable, then pottery produced before the 1840s (when historians say potteries closed) could easily have lasted through the 1860s and beyond. This perfectly explains how both the historians' assumption (potteries closed in 1840s) and the archaeological evidence (redware in use in 1860s) can both be true without contradiction.
Knowing that cottages were abandoned in the mid-1860s doesn't explain how redware could still be in use if production stopped in the 1840s. The abandonment timing doesn't resolve the core issue about the gap between when production ended and when the pottery was still being used.