Excavation of the house of a third-century Camarnian official revealed that he had served four magistrates—public officials who administer the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Excavation of the house of a third-century Camarnian official revealed that he had served four magistrates—public officials who administer the law—over his thirty-year public career, in four provincial capital cities. However, given the Camarnian administrative system of that era, it is unclear whether he served them simultaneously, as a traveling administrator living for part of the year in each provincial capital, or else did so sequentially, leaving one magistrate after several years to join another.
Which of the following would, if found in the excavation, most likely help reveal the pattern of the official's administrative service?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Excavation of the house of a third-century Camarnian official revealed that he had served four magistrates—public officials who administer the law—over his thirty-year public career, in four provincial capital cities. |
|
| However, given the Camarnian administrative system of that era, it is unclear whether he served them simultaneously, as a traveling administrator living for part of the year in each provincial capital, or else did so sequentially, leaving one magistrate after several years to join another. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage presents archaeological evidence about an official's career pattern, then explains why this evidence creates uncertainty about how exactly he served these magistrates.
Main Conclusion:
There's no main conclusion here - this is actually a setup passage that presents a puzzle rather than making an argument.
Logical Structure:
This isn't a traditional argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's a problem-presentation structure: Facts → Uncertainty about interpreting those facts → [Question asks what evidence would resolve the uncertainty]
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to find archaeological evidence that would help determine whether the official served simultaneously (traveling between cities) or sequentially (one after another)
Precision of Claims
The key uncertainty is about the timing and pattern of service: simultaneous vs sequential work with four magistrates across four cities over 30 years
Strategy
For this evaluate question, we need to think of specific archaeological evidence that would clearly point toward one interpretation over the other. We should consider what physical objects or records would definitively show either a traveling pattern (simultaneous service) or a career progression pattern (sequential service). The evidence needs to be something that could realistically be found in a house excavation and would provide clear timing or logistical information about how the official conducted his work.
Maps and documents describing each of the four provincial capitals would give us information about the cities themselves, but they wouldn't tell us anything about when or how the official served in each location. We already know he worked in four different cities - what we need is evidence about the timing and pattern of his service, not descriptions of the places he worked.
A cache of the official's documents related to work from early in his career would be extremely helpful because these work documents would contain dates, assignments, and records that show exactly when he was working for which magistrate. If we see overlapping dates for different magistrates, we'd know he served simultaneously. If we see clear start and end dates with no overlap, we'd know he served sequentially. This directly addresses our central question about timing and service pattern.
A set of cups made only in the city of the first magistrate would tell us he had some connection to that first city, but it doesn't help us understand whether he was traveling between all four cities at once or moved from one to another over time. Having items from one city doesn't resolve the timing question.
Furniture in the styles of two provincial capitals shows he had connections to at least two cities, but this doesn't give us the timing information we need. Whether he served simultaneously or sequentially, he could have acquired furniture from multiple cities. This doesn't distinguish between the two possible service patterns.
Heavy clothing for the coldest city would indicate he spent time in that particular city, but like the other physical items, it doesn't provide any information about when he was there or how his service was structured across all four locations. It's just evidence of presence in one city, not evidence of his overall service pattern.