Loading...
The earliest characteristically Mayan pottery found at Colha, a site in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. This fact has led many archaeologists to conclude that the Maya first settled Colha about 3,000 years ago. However, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements recently found at Colha apparently undermine that conclusion, since the implements resemble Maya stone implements of a much later period that were also found at Colha, and since __________.
Which of the following best completes the passage?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The earliest characteristically Mayan pottery found at Colha, a site in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. |
|
| This fact has led many archaeologists to conclude that the Maya first settled Colha about 3,000 years ago. |
|
| However, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements recently found at Colha apparently undermine that conclusion, since the implements resemble Maya stone implements of a much later period that were also found at Colha, and since _____. |
|
The passage starts with established evidence (3,000-year-old pottery) that led to a widely accepted conclusion about when Maya settled Colha. Then it introduces new contradicting evidence (4,500-year-old tools) that challenges this timeline, suggesting Maya were there much earlier than previously thought.
The new 4,500-year-old stone implements challenge the established belief that Maya first settled Colha 3,000 years ago, suggesting they may have been there 1,500 years earlier.
This is a classic 'evidence vs. counter-evidence' structure. The passage shows how new archaeological findings can overturn previously accepted conclusions. The 4,500-year-old tools serve as counter-evidence to the pottery-based timeline, creating a logical tension that needs resolution through the missing completion.
Logically Completes - We need to find a statement that logically completes the argument by providing the missing piece that explains why the 4,500-year-old stone implements undermine the conclusion that Maya first settled 3,000 years ago.
The key claims involve specific time periods (3,000 vs 4,500 years ago), archaeological evidence (pottery vs stone implements), and the connection between artifacts and Maya settlement patterns. We need to be precise about what would logically connect older stone tools to Maya presence.
For this logically completes question, we need to find what missing information would make the argument coherent. The argument says the 4,500-year-old implements 'apparently undermine' the 3,000-year settlement conclusion because they resemble later Maya tools AND because of something else. We need that 'something else' that strengthens the connection between these old tools and Maya presence, making it reasonable to conclude Maya were there 4,500 years ago, not just 3,000.
This choice provides the missing logical link we need. The argument tells us the 4,500-year-old implements resemble later Maya tools, and if other cultures in the area made tools with strikingly different designs, this strongly suggests the ancient implements were made by Maya, not other cultures. This eliminates alternative explanations and supports the idea that Maya were present 4,500 years ago, directly undermining the 3,000-year settlement conclusion. This completes the logical chain perfectly.
This choice actually supports the original 3,000-year conclusion rather than undermining it. If there's no evidence of Maya agricultural activity elsewhere until 3,000 years ago, this would strengthen the belief that Maya settlement began around that time. This works against the argument's direction of challenging the 3,000-year timeline.
The elaborateness of pottery decorations over time is completely irrelevant to the timing question about when Maya first settled Colha. This discusses artistic development but doesn't connect to whether 4,500-year-old stone implements indicate earlier Maya presence. This choice doesn't advance the argument at all.
While this establishes that Maya didn't use pottery for farming tools (explaining why we found stone implements), it doesn't help explain why these particular 4,500-year-old stone implements suggest Maya presence. The choice doesn't address the crucial question of who made these ancient tools or why they indicate Maya settlement.
This choice discusses social institutions from 3,000 years ago but completely misses the point. We need information that helps explain why 4,500-year-old implements suggest earlier Maya presence, not details about what Maya society was like 3,000 years ago. This doesn't contribute to undermining the original timeline conclusion.