The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. |
|
| Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. |
|
| These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. |
|
| Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. |
|
| Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with established facts about known Mayan presence, introduces new evidence of older tools, then builds a case through similarity and elimination to reach a conclusion about earlier Mayan settlements.
Main Conclusion:
There were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses two main types of evidence: (1) the 4,500-year-old tools resemble later Mayan tools, and (2) the tools don't match other known cultures from that area. By process of elimination and similarity, the author concludes the tools must be Mayan, proving earlier settlement.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that Mayans definitely lived at Colha 4,500 years ago
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a definitive claim ('surely') about identity (Mayan vs non-Mayan) and timing (4,500 years ago vs 3,000 years ago). The key evidence is similarity in tool designs across time periods and difference from other known cultures.
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to attack the reasoning that connects the 4,500-year-old tools to Mayan origin. The argument relies on two main pieces of evidence: 1) the tools resemble later Mayan implements, and 2) they don't match other known cultures in the area. We should look for scenarios that either provide alternative explanations for the tool similarity or challenge the assumption that resemblance equals same cultural origin.
This tells us that Mayans didn't use ceramic for agricultural tools, but this doesn't weaken the argument. The argument is about stone implements, not ceramic ones. The fact that Mayans used stone (not ceramic) for farming tools actually supports the idea that the stone implements could be Mayan. This choice is irrelevant to the conclusion.
This actually strengthens the argument rather than weakening it. If agriculture began at Colha 4,500 years ago (the same time as the stone tools), this supports the timeline the argument is trying to establish. It makes it more plausible that there were settlements there 4,500 years ago, which aligns with the conclusion.
This provides information about how the stone tools were used (clearing vegetation after burning), but it doesn't address whether these tools were made by Mayans or someone else. The argument's weakness is about cultural attribution, not about what the tools were used for. This doesn't impact the reasoning about who made the tools.
This directly attacks the argument's core reasoning. The argument assumes that because old tools resemble later Mayan tools, they must be Mayan. But if successor cultures typically adopt the tool styles of earlier inhabitants, then the Mayans could have simply copied a non-Mayan culture's design. This means resemblance doesn't prove same cultural origin - it could mean the Mayans learned from whoever came before them. This seriously weakens the conclusion.
Information about Mayan religious and social institutions from 3,000 years ago doesn't help us determine who made tools 4,500 years ago. Even if Mayans had sophisticated agricultural symbols later, this doesn't prove they were the ones who made the earlier stone implements. This choice doesn't address the gap in time or the cultural attribution problem.