Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida, a Native American people, the best from the hunt or...

GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Reading Comprehension

Humanities

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida, a Native American people, the best from the hunt or the harvest was given to families of high social status, even in times of economic stress. Archaeological research suggests a similar relationship between social status and diet in the Dallas communities of eastern Tennessee, prehistoric Native American groups with a social organization and economy similar to that of the Timucua. The first real clue came when archaeologists discovered that skeletons of higher-status individuals tended to be several centimeters taller than those of people of lower status.

In the largest Dallas communities, some individuals were buried in the earthen mounds that served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs. These burials included quantities of finely crafted items made of nonlocal material, denoting the high political standing of those interred. Burials of lower-status individuals contained primarily utilitarian items such as cooking vessels and chipped Stone tools and are located in more remote sections of the settlements. The burials actually formed a pattern, the tallest skeletons being found in the mounds, and the heights declining as burials became more distant from the mounds. While it is possible that taller people were simply more successful in achieving high social standing, it is more likely that a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups.

Excavations indicate that three food categories made up the bulk of the population's diet: agricultural crops cultivated in the fertile alluvial soils where the communities were located, game, and wild edible plants, primarily nuts. Information about dietary variation among community members is derived by analyzing trace elements in human bone. Higher than normal levels of manganese, strontium, and vanadium probably indicate a less nutritious diet heavily dependent on edible plants. Very low concentrations of vanadium, which is scarce in meats and somewhat lower in nuts than in other plant resources, are good evidence of meat consumption and thus a better balanced-diet. As expected, vanadium was found in considerably greater quantities in skeletons in the burials of lower-status groups.

Ques. 1/4

According to the passage, which of the following statements regarding earthen mounds in the Dallas communities is accurate?

They served primarily as burial grounds.

They were constructed in key locations on the perimeter of the village.

They were elements in important structures in the community.

They were used as storehouses for keeping valuable possessions safe.

They contained utilitarian items made of nonlocal materials.

Solution

1. Passage Analysis:

Progressive Passage Analysis

Text from Passage	Analysis
Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida, a Native American people, the best from the hunt or the harvest was given to families of high social status, even in times of economic stress.	What it says: High-status people got the best food, even when food was scarce. What it does: Establishes the passage's main topic - connection between social status and food quality among Native Americans. Source/Type: Historical fact from documents Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - introduces the core concept we'll examine. Visualization: High Status Families: Get premium cuts of meat, best crops Lower Status Families: Get lesser quality food Even during food shortages: This hierarchy maintained Reading Strategy Insight: This opening sentence gives us the passage's central theme. Everything else will either support or explore this idea further.
Archaeological research suggests a similar relationship between social status and diet in the Dallas communities of eastern Tennessee, prehistoric Native American groups with a social organization and economy similar to that of the Timucua.	What it says: Researchers think the Dallas communities (different Native American groups) had the same pattern as the Timucua. What it does: Introduces the main subject of study - extends the Timucua pattern to another group. Source/Type: Archaeological research/scientific claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by saying "We saw this pattern in the Timucua, and we think the Dallas communities had the same pattern." This is reinforcement, not new complexity. Visualization: Timucua (Florida): High status → better food ✓ Dallas Communities (Tennessee): High status → better food (probably) ? What We Know So Far: Social status affected food quality in Native American groups What We Don't Know Yet: How researchers determined this about the Dallas communities Reading Strategy Insight: The author is setting up to prove the same pattern existed in two different groups. This suggests we'll get evidence about the Dallas communities next.
The first real clue came when archaeologists discovered that skeletons of higher-status individuals tended to be several centimeters taller than those of people of lower status.	What it says: High-status people were taller than low-status people (by several centimeters). What it does: Provides the first piece of evidence for the status-diet connection in Dallas communities. Source/Type: Archaeological discovery/factual evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This answers the "What We Don't Know Yet" from sentence 2. It explains HOW researchers detected the status-diet pattern - through height differences in skeletons. Visualization: High-Status Skeletons: Average height, say 170 cm Lower-Status Skeletons: Average height, say 165 cm Difference: Several centimeters taller What We Know So Far: - Status affected food quality in Native Americans - Dallas communities probably had this pattern - Evidence: High-status people were taller Reading Strategy Insight: This is classic RC structure - claim followed by evidence. Height differences suggest better nutrition for high-status individuals.
In the largest Dallas communities, some individuals were buried in the earthen mounds that served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs.	What it says: Some people were buried in special mounds under important buildings. What it does: Begins explaining how archaeologists determined social status differences. Source/Type: Archaeological observation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the height discovery by starting to explain how researchers knew which skeletons belonged to high vs. low status people. We needed this context to make sense of the height differences. Visualization: Dallas Community Layout: - Important civic/religious buildings - Special earthen mounds underneath these buildings - Some burials located IN these prestigious mounds What We Don't Know Yet: Whether mound burials = high status (though it's strongly implied) Reading Strategy Insight: The author is methodically explaining their evidence. First height differences, now burial locations. This builds understanding step by step.
These burials included quantities of finely crafted items made of nonlocal material, denoting the high political standing of those interred.	What it says: The people buried in mounds had fancy items made from materials not found locally, showing they had high political status. What it does: Confirms that mound burials = high status people. Source/Type: Archaeological evidence and interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This confirms what we suspected from sentence 4 - mound burials were for high-status people. Now we know: high status people were buried in mounds AND were taller. Visualization: Mound Burials Contained: - Finely crafted jewelry - Tools made from copper (not local) - Decorative items from distant regions = High political standing confirmed What We Know So Far: - High status people were taller - High status people buried in special mounds - Mound burials contained luxury goods Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is confirmation, not new complexity. The author is proving the status system existed before connecting it to diet.
Burials of lower-status individuals contained primarily utilitarian items such as cooking vessels and chipped Stone tools and are located in more remote sections of the settlements.	What it says: Low-status people were buried away from the center with everyday items like pots and basic tools. What it does: Provides the contrast - shows how low-status burials differed from high-status ones. Source/Type: Archaeological evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts directly with sentence 5. High status: fancy goods, central location vs. Low status: everyday items, remote location. This reinforces the status hierarchy. Visualization: High-Status Burials: Central mounds + luxury items vs. Low-Status Burials: Remote areas + cooking pots, basic stone tools Reading Strategy Insight: The author is establishing clear status differences before explaining the diet connection. This contrast makes the hierarchy obvious and undeniable.
The burials actually formed a pattern, the tallest skeletons being found in the mounds, and the heights declining as burials became more distant from the mounds.	What it says: There was a clear pattern - the farther from the mounds, the shorter the skeletons. What it does: Restates and reinforces the key finding - combines the height evidence with the burial location evidence. Source/Type: Archaeological pattern/summary of findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This ties together sentences 3, 4, 5, and 6. This is NOT new information - it's showing us how all the evidence fits together perfectly. Visualization: Settlement Layout by Height: - Center mounds: 170 cm average height - Middle areas: 167 cm average height - Remote sections: 164 cm average height Clear declining pattern from center to edges What We Know So Far: Perfect correlation between social status, burial location, and height Reading Strategy Insight: This is a simplification sentence! The author is helping us see the clear pattern instead of juggling separate facts.
While it is possible that taller people were simply more successful in achieving high social standing, it is more likely that a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups.	What it says: Maybe tall people just became leaders, but probably poor nutrition made lower-status people shorter. What it does: Acknowledges alternative explanation but argues for the diet-affects-height interpretation. Source/Type: Author's analytical reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains the height pattern from sentence 7. The author is saying "Here's what the height differences probably mean" - connecting back to the original topic of status affecting diet quality. Visualization: Possible Explanation 1: Tall people → became leaders vs. More Likely Explanation 2: Poor diet → shorter stature among lower-status people Reading Strategy Insight: The author is returning to the main topic (diet) after establishing the evidence. This connects the height evidence back to the original Timucua example.
Excavations indicate that three food categories made up the bulk of the population's diet: agricultural crops cultivated in the fertile alluvial soils where the communities were located, game, and wild edible plants, primarily nuts.	What it says: The Dallas people ate mainly three things: farmed crops, hunted animals, and wild plants (especially nuts). What it does: Establishes the baseline diet to set up for discussing variations by status. Source/Type: Archaeological evidence from excavations Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 8's diet explanation by specifying what foods were available. We need to know the overall diet before understanding how it varied by status. Visualization: Dallas Diet Categories: 1. Agricultural crops (grown in fertile soil) 2. Game animals (hunted) 3. Wild edible plants (mainly nuts) Reading Strategy Insight: The author is setting up the foundation before showing us status-based differences. This is background information, not the main point.
Information about dietary variation among community members is derived by analyzing trace elements in human bone.	What it says: Scientists can tell what people ate by studying chemical elements in their bones. What it does: Explains the methodology for determining diet differences by status. Source/Type: Scientific methodology explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains HOW researchers will prove the diet-status connection. Similar to how earlier sentences explained height measurement methodology. Visualization: Bone Analysis Process: Human bones → Chemical analysis → Trace elements detected → Diet patterns revealed Reading Strategy Insight: This is a "how we know" sentence. The author is establishing credible methodology before giving us the results.
Higher than normal levels of manganese, strontium, and vanadium probably indicate a less nutritious diet heavily dependent on edible plants.	What it says: High levels of certain chemicals in bones suggest poor diet with too many plants. What it does: Establishes what chemical signatures mean for interpreting diet quality. Source/Type: Scientific interpretation of trace element data Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 10's methodology by explaining what the chemical analysis reveals. High levels of these elements = poor diet. Visualization: Poor Diet Indicators: - High manganese in bones - High strontium in bones - High vanadium in bones = Diet too dependent on plants (less nutritious) What We Don't Know Yet: What low levels of these chemicals indicate Reading Strategy Insight: The author is building the interpretive framework systematically - first the methodology, now the indicators of poor diet.
Very low concentrations of vanadium, which is scarce in meats and somewhat lower in nuts than in other plant resources, are good evidence of meat consumption and thus a better balanced-diet.	What it says: Low vanadium levels in bones suggest the person ate meat, which means better nutrition. What it does: Explains what low vanadium indicates - contrasts with the previous sentence about high levels. Source/Type: Scientific interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the interpretive framework from sentence 11. High vanadium = poor diet, Low vanadium = good diet. Now we have the complete picture for interpreting the evidence. Visualization: Vanadium Levels as Diet Indicator: - High vanadium = plant-heavy diet = poor nutrition - Low vanadium = meat-rich diet = better nutrition (Because meat has very little vanadium) What We Know So Far: Complete methodology for determining diet quality from bones Reading Strategy Insight: Now we have all the tools to understand the final evidence. The setup is complete.
As expected, vanadium was found in considerably greater quantities in skeletons in the burials of lower-status groups.	What it says: Low-status people had high vanadium in their bones, just as predicted. What it does: Provides the final proof that confirms everything - lower status people had worse diets. Source/Type: Research results Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the payoff! It connects ALL the previous information: - Lower status (sentences 4-6) - Had shorter stature (sentences 3, 7-8) - Due to poor diet (sentence 8) - Proven by high vanadium levels (sentences 11-12) "As expected" shows this confirms the hypothesis perfectly. Visualization: Final Confirmation: Lower-status burials → High vanadium in bones → Plant-heavy diet → Poor nutrition → Shorter stature EXACTLY as predicted from the Timucua pattern! Reading Strategy Insight: This is the triumphant conclusion that proves the original thesis! Everything comes together perfectly. The passage has built a complete, supported argument returning to the opening idea.

2. Passage Summary:

Author's Purpose:

To prove that social status determined food quality among Native American groups by using archaeological evidence from the Dallas communities to support what historical documents showed about the Timucua people.

Summary of Passage Structure:

The author builds their argument by systematically presenting and analyzing archaeological evidence:

First, the author introduces the known pattern from historical records that high-status Timucua people got better food, then claims the same pattern existed in Dallas communities based on archaeological research.
Next, the author presents the key discovery that higher-status people had taller skeletons and explains how archaeologists determined social status by examining burial locations and grave goods.
Then, the author shows that height and social status were perfectly correlated, argues this was likely due to diet differences rather than tall people becoming leaders, and explains the scientific method for analyzing diet through bone chemistry.
Finally, the author reveals that chemical analysis confirmed their hypothesis by showing that lower-status people had bone chemistry indicating poor, plant-heavy diets.

Main Point:

Archaeological evidence proves that social status determined diet quality among Native American groups, with high-status people receiving better nutrition that made them taller, while lower-status people suffered from poor diets that stunted their growth.

Question Analysis:

The question asks for an accurate statement about earthen mounds in the Dallas communities. This is a specific detail question that requires us to locate information about the earthen mounds and understand their function based on what's explicitly stated in the passage.

Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:

From our passage analysis, the earthen mounds are mentioned specifically in sentence 4: "In the largest Dallas communities, some individuals were buried in the earthen mounds that served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs." This sentence provides crucial information about the mounds' primary function and their relationship to important community structures.

The passage analysis shows that the author systematically builds evidence for social status differences, using burial locations as one key indicator. The earthen mounds represent the most prestigious burial locations, reserved for high-status individuals with luxury grave goods.

Prethinking:

Based on the passage structure and the specific information provided about earthen mounds, I should look for an answer choice that reflects their role as substructures for important buildings rather than as standalone burial grounds or storage areas. The passage clearly states they "served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs," which means they were structural elements supporting important community buildings, not just burial sites.

Answer Choices Explained

They served primarily as burial grounds.

Why It's Wrong:
• The passage states mounds "served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs," not primarily as burial grounds
• While some high-status individuals were buried in the mounds, this was secondary to their structural function
• The passage emphasizes their role in supporting important buildings, not as dedicated cemeteries

Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you focus only on the burial aspect because that's what the passage discusses most?
→ Remember that the passage mentions burials in mounds as evidence for social status, but the mounds' primary function was architectural
1. Are you confusing "some individuals were buried in the mounds" with "mounds served primarily as burial grounds"?
→ The word "primarily" changes the meaning completely - focus on the stated purpose, not just one use

They were constructed in key locations on the perimeter of the village.

Why It's Wrong:
• No information in the passage suggests mounds were on the perimeter of villages
• The passage mentions "more remote sections" for lower-status burials, implying mounds were more centrally located
• The emphasis on "important" buildings suggests central, not peripheral, location

Common Student Mistakes:
1. Are you making assumptions about where important buildings would be located?
→ Stick only to what the passage explicitly states about locations
1. Did you confuse this with the mention of "remote sections" for lower-status burials?
→ The passage contrasts mound burials with remote burials, suggesting mounds were in important, central areas

They were elements in important structures in the community.

Why It's Right:
• Directly supported by the passage's explicit statement about mounds' function
• Aligns with the passage's emphasis on the importance of civic and religious structures
• Correctly identifies the mounds as structural components rather than standalone features

Key Evidence: "In the largest Dallas communities, some individuals were buried in the earthen mounds that served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs."

They were used as storehouses for keeping valuable possessions safe.

Why It's Wrong:
• No mention in the passage of mounds being used for storage purposes
• The passage only discusses their role as building substructures and burial locations
• This completely misrepresents the mounds' documented functions

Common Student Mistakes:
1. Are you inferring storage use because valuable items were found in mound burials?
→ The valuable items were burial goods with the deceased, not stored possessions
1. Did you confuse the presence of valuable goods with storage function?
→ Burial goods ≠ storage; these items were interred with high-status individuals, not kept for later use

They contained utilitarian items made of nonlocal materials.

Why It's Wrong:
• The passage states that mound burials contained "finely crafted items made of nonlocal material," not utilitarian items
• Utilitarian items were found in lower-status burials in remote sections, not in mounds
• This directly contradicts the evidence presented for distinguishing high vs. low status burials

Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you mix up the burial types and their associated grave goods?
→ Review the contrast: mound burials had luxury nonlocal items, while remote burials had utilitarian items
1. Are you confusing "nonlocal materials" with "utilitarian items"?
→ These are opposite categories - nonlocal items indicated wealth and trade connections, while utilitarian items were everyday tools

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...