In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, many Western Pueblo settlements in what is now the southwestern United States may have...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, many Western Pueblo settlements in what is now the southwestern United States may have possessed distinctly hierarchical organizational structures. These communities' agricultural systems—which were "intensive" in the use of labor rather than "extensive" in area—may have given rise to political leadership that managed both labor and food resources. That formal management of food resources was needed is suggested by the large size of storage spaces located around some communal Great Kivas (underground ceremonial chambers). Though no direct evidence exists that such spaces were used to store food, Western Pueblo communities lacking sufficient arable land to support their populations could have preserved the necessary extra food, including imported foodstuffs, in such apparently communal spaces.
Moreover, evidence of specialization in producing raw materials and in manufacturing ceramics and textiles indicates differentiation of labor within and between communities. The organizational and managerial demands of such specialization strengthen the possibility that a decision-making elite existed, an elite whose control over labor, the use of community surpluses, and the acquisition of imported goods would have led to a concentration of economic resources in their own hands. Evidence for differential distribution of wealth is found in burials of the period: some include large quantities of pottery, jewelry, and other artifacts, whereas others from the same sites lack any such materials.
Ques. 1/3
According to the passage, which of the following is probably true of the storage spaces mentioned in line 14?
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, many Western Pueblo settlements in what is now the southwestern United States may have possessed distinctly hierarchical organizational structures. | What it says: Some ancient Native American communities might have had clear social rankings with leaders and followers. What it does: Introduces the main claim/hypothesis of the passage Source/Type: Author's claim based on research evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation Visualization: Imagine a community of 500 people where instead of everyone being equal, there might be 50 leaders, 200 skilled workers, and 250 general laborers in a pyramid structure Reading Strategy Insight: Note the word "may have" - this tells us we're dealing with educated guesses based on evidence, not absolute facts. The author is being appropriately cautious. What We Know So Far: Ancient Pueblo communities possibly had social hierarchies What We Don't Know Yet: What evidence supports this claim |
| These communities' agricultural systems-which were "intensive" in the use of labor rather than "extensive" in area-may have given rise to political leadership that managed both labor and food resources. | What it says: Their farming required lots of workers in small spaces (not spreading out over huge areas), which probably created a need for managers. What it does: Provides the first piece of logical reasoning - explains WHY hierarchies might have developed Source/Type: Author's logical analysis of agricultural evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly supports sentence 1 by giving us the first reason WHY hierarchies existed - it's not just claiming they existed, but explaining the cause Visualization: Picture intensive farming like a crowded 10-acre plot needing 100 workers vs. extensive farming like 100 acres needing 20 workers. The crowded plot needs more coordination and management. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel good here! The author is helping you by immediately explaining their claim instead of just stating mysterious facts. What We Know So Far: Hierarchies existed + reason #1 (intensive agriculture needed management) What We Don't Know Yet: What specific evidence proves this |
| That formal management of food resources was needed is suggested by the large size of storage spaces located around some communal Great Kivas (underground ceremonial chambers). | What it says: We know management was needed because archaeologists found really big food storage areas near ceremonial buildings. What it does: Introduces the first concrete piece of physical evidence Source/Type: Archaeological evidence interpreted by researchers Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 2 by providing physical proof that "management of food resources" actually happened - moving from logical reasoning to actual evidence Visualization: Imagine finding underground ceremonial rooms the size of a basketball court, surrounded by storage spaces as large as several modern garages - much bigger than a typical family would need Reading Strategy Insight: The author is being helpful again - they told us management was needed, now they're showing us the proof. This is building confidence, not complexity. What We Know So Far: Hierarchies existed + intensive agriculture + physical evidence (large storage spaces) What We Don't Know Yet: Are we certain these were for food storage? |
| Though no direct evidence exists that such spaces were used to store food, Western Pueblo communities lacking sufficient arable land to support their populations could have preserved the necessary extra food, including imported foodstuffs, in such apparently communal spaces. | What it says: We can't prove these big spaces stored food, but it makes sense because these communities didn't have enough farmland and would need to store extra food and imports somewhere. What it does: Acknowledges a limitation in the evidence but provides logical reasoning for the interpretation Source/Type: Author's honest admission about evidence limitations + logical deduction Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly addresses sentence 3 by being honest about uncertainty while strengthening the logical case - communities with insufficient land would NEED large storage Visualization: A community of 800 people with farmland that only feeds 600 people would need storage for an extra 200 people's worth of food, plus imported goods like corn from other regions Reading Strategy Insight: Don't panic about "no direct evidence" - the author is being appropriately scholarly while still building their case. This honesty actually strengthens their argument. What We Know So Far: Hierarchies + intensive agriculture + large storage (probably food) + communities needed extra food storage What We Don't Know Yet: What other evidence supports hierarchies? |
| Moreover, evidence of specialization in producing raw materials and in manufacturing ceramics and textiles indicates differentiation of labor within and between communities. | What it says: People had specialized jobs (some made pottery, others made cloth, etc.) rather than everyone doing everything. What it does: Introduces a second major type of evidence for hierarchical organization Source/Type: Archaeological evidence of specialized production Connection to Previous Sentences: The word "Moreover" signals this is ADDITIONAL evidence supporting the same main claim from sentence 1 - we're getting a second pillar of evidence, not a new topic Visualization: Instead of each family making their own pots, cloth, and tools, imagine Community A specializing in pottery, Community B in textiles, and individuals within communities having specific roles - like 30 potters, 25 weavers, 45 farmers Reading Strategy Insight: This is the same argument getting stronger - specialization requires coordination, which supports the hierarchy claim. Feel confident that pieces are connecting. What We Know So Far: Evidence pillar #1 (food management) + Evidence pillar #2 (labor specialization) What We Don't Know Yet: How does specialization connect to hierarchies? |
| The organizational and managerial demands of such specialization strengthen the possibility that a decision-making elite existed, an elite whose control over labor, the use of community surpluses, and the acquisition of imported goods would have led to a concentration of economic resources in their own hands. | What it says: Managing all these specialists would require leaders who would naturally end up controlling resources and becoming wealthy. What it does: Connects the dots between specialization and hierarchy - this is explanation, not new complexity Source/Type: Author's logical analysis connecting evidence to conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains HOW sentence 5's specialization evidence supports sentence 1's hierarchy claim - the author is helping us see the connections! Visualization: Picture 200 specialists needing coordination: Who decides how many pots to make? Who manages trade with other communities? Those decision-makers would control surplus goods and imports, becoming wealthy - maybe accumulating 10x more resources than average community members Reading Strategy Insight: Celebrate this sentence! It's not adding complexity - it's showing you how everything connects. The argument is becoming clearer, not murkier. What We Know So Far: Complete logical chain: specialization → need for management → elite decision-makers → wealth concentration What We Don't Know Yet: Is there direct evidence of wealth differences? |
| Evidence for differential distribution of wealth is found in burials of the period: some include large quantities of pottery, jewelry, and other artifacts, whereas others from the same sites lack any such materials. | What it says: When archaeologists dug up graves, some people were buried with lots of valuable stuff while others had nothing. What it does: Provides the final, most concrete evidence - direct proof of wealth inequality Source/Type: Archaeological evidence from burial sites Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the PERFECT answer to sentence 6's prediction about "concentration of economic resources" - the author predicted wealth concentration and now shows us the proof! Visualization: Imagine excavating 50 graves from the same time period and location: 10 graves contain 200+ pottery pieces, gold jewelry, and imported shells, while 40 graves contain nothing but the body - clear evidence of social stratification Reading Strategy Insight: This is the satisfying conclusion! The author built a logical case and delivered concrete proof. You should feel confident and accomplished, not overwhelmed. What We Know So Far: Complete argument with proof: intensive agriculture + specialization → management needs → elite formation → wealth concentration (proven by burial evidence) What We Don't Know Yet: Nothing major - the argument is complete and well-supported! |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how ancient Western Pueblo communities developed hierarchical social structures by examining the evidence and reasoning behind this historical development.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by presenting a clear claim and then systematically supporting it with multiple types of evidence:
- First, the author states their main claim that Western Pueblo settlements likely had hierarchical organizational structures in the 14th and 15th centuries.
- Next, they explain the logical reason why hierarchies would develop - intensive agriculture required management of labor and food resources.
- Then, they present physical evidence supporting this theory, including large storage spaces near ceremonial sites and evidence of labor specialization between communities.
- Finally, they provide the strongest proof by showing that burial sites reveal clear differences in wealth, with some graves containing many valuable items while others contain none.
Main Point:
Ancient Western Pueblo communities most likely had clear social hierarchies with wealthy elites at the top, as proven by multiple types of evidence including their farming systems, specialized labor, and especially the dramatic differences in grave goods found in burial sites.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks what is "probably true" of the storage spaces mentioned in line 14. These are the "large size of storage spaces located around some communal Great Kivas." This is asking for an inference based on what the passage tells us about these specific storage areas.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know several key facts about these storage spaces:
- They were located around communal Great Kivas (ceremonial chambers)
- Their large size suggests formal management of food resources was needed
- The passage states "no direct evidence exists that such spaces were used to store food" but provides logical reasoning for why they probably were
- The passage specifically calls them "apparently communal spaces"
- They would have been used by "Western Pueblo communities lacking sufficient arable land" to preserve "necessary extra food, including imported foodstuffs"
Prethinking:
The key insight from our analysis is that these storage spaces are described as "communal" and were used by entire "communities" that lacked sufficient farmland. The passage presents them as evidence of formal management systems that served the whole community's needs, not individual or elite needs. The word "communal" appearing twice in relation to these spaces (both the Great Kivas and the storage spaces themselves) strongly suggests community-wide ownership and use.
Answer Choices Explained
A
They were used by the community elite for storage of their own food supplies.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage describes these as "apparently communal spaces," not elite storage
- No evidence suggests the elite used these for their personal food supplies
- The passage indicates these served community-wide needs for populations lacking sufficient farmland
- Did I assume that because elites managed resources, they must have owned the storage spaces?
→ Remember that managers don't necessarily own what they manage - these were communal spaces that elites may have supervised - Am I confusing evidence of elite wealth (burial goods) with evidence about storage space ownership?
→ The burial evidence shows wealth differences but doesn't connect to who owned the storage spaces
B
They served a ceremonial as well as a practical function.
Why It's Wrong:
- While the spaces were located around ceremonial Great Kivas, the passage doesn't suggest the storage spaces themselves served ceremonial functions
- The passage treats the ceremonial and storage functions as separate - the Kivas were ceremonial, the storage spaces were practical
- No evidence indicates the storage spaces had any ceremonial purpose
- Did I confuse the location near ceremonial chambers with the storage spaces themselves being ceremonial?
→ Being located near something ceremonial doesn't make the storage spaces ceremonial - Am I mixing up the Great Kivas (which were ceremonial) with the storage spaces (which were practical)?
→ Keep these distinct - ceremonial chambers and storage areas served different purposes
C
Their size is an indication of the wealth of the particular community to which they belonged.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't compare storage space sizes between different communities
- Large size is presented as evidence of management needs, not wealth indicators
- The size relates to functional needs (storing food for populations lacking adequate farmland), not wealth display
- Am I assuming that "large size" automatically indicates wealth rather than practical necessity?
→ The passage explains large size as evidence of management needs for communities lacking sufficient farmland - Did I confuse individual wealth (shown in burials) with community-level infrastructure?
→ Storage spaces were communal infrastructure, not personal wealth indicators
D
Their existence proves that the community to which they belonged imported large amounts of food.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage states these communities "could have preserved" imported foodstuffs, not that they definitely did in large amounts
- The existence of storage spaces doesn't prove anything - it only suggests possibilities
- The word "proves" is too strong given the passage's cautious language about possibilities
- Did I treat "could have preserved...imported foodstuffs" as proof of large-scale importing?
→ "Could have" indicates possibility, not proof of what actually happened - Am I confusing evidence of storage capacity with proof of what was actually stored?
→ Having the ability to store imports doesn't prove large amounts were actually imported
E
They belonged to and were used by the community as a whole.
Why It's Right:
- The passage explicitly calls them "apparently communal spaces"
- They're described as serving "Western Pueblo communities" as a whole
- Located around "communal Great Kivas," reinforcing the community-wide nature
- The context shows they served entire communities lacking sufficient farmland, not individuals
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More