Traces of cultivated emmer wheat have been found among the earliest agricultural remains of many archeological sites in Europe and...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Traces of cultivated emmer wheat have been found among the earliest agricultural remains of many archeological sites in Europe and Asia. The only place where the wild form of emmer wheat has been found growing is a relatively narrow strip of southwest Asia. Since the oldest remains of cultivated emmer wheat yet found are from village sites in the same narrow strip, it is clear that emmer wheat was first domesticated somewhere in that strip.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Traces of cultivated emmer wheat have been found among the earliest agricultural remains of many archeological sites in Europe and Asia. |
|
| The only place where the wild form of emmer wheat has been found growing is a relatively narrow strip of southwest Asia. |
|
| Since the oldest remains of cultivated emmer wheat yet found are from village sites in the same narrow strip, it is clear that emmer wheat was first domesticated somewhere in that strip. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument moves from broad geographic evidence (cultivated wheat found everywhere) to specific location evidence (wild wheat only in one strip) to timeline evidence (oldest cultivated remains in same strip) to reach the conclusion about where domestication first happened.
Main Conclusion:
Emmer wheat was first domesticated somewhere in the narrow strip of southwest Asia where wild emmer wheat naturally grows.
Logical Structure:
This uses geographic and temporal evidence to trace domestication back to its origin. The logic is: if wild wheat only grows in one place, and the oldest cultivated remains are also from that same place, then that's where people first learned to farm this crop.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that would make us more confident that emmer wheat was first domesticated in that narrow strip of southwest Asia
Precision of Claims
The conclusion makes a specific geographic claim about WHERE domestication first occurred (in the narrow strip) based on WHERE we find the oldest remains and WHERE wild wheat grows naturally
Strategy
Look for new information that would eliminate alternative explanations or provide additional support for the geographic origin theory. We want to strengthen the connection between the narrow strip being both the natural habitat and the original domestication location.
This tells us that another wild wheat (einkon) covers a much larger area than emmer wheat. This doesn't strengthen our argument about emmer wheat's domestication location - it's just information about a different type of wheat. The geographic distribution of einkon doesn't affect the reasoning about where emmer wheat was first domesticated.
This explains that wild emmer wheat can easily be domesticated and yields well. While this might explain why people chose to domesticate emmer wheat, it doesn't strengthen the argument about WHERE domestication first occurred. The ease of domestication doesn't support the geographic claim.
This states that emmer wheat was the most nutritious grain when first cultivated. Like choice B, this might explain WHY people domesticated emmer wheat, but it doesn't provide any additional support for the claim that domestication first happened in the narrow strip of southwest Asia.
This confirms that climatic conditions haven't changed much in the region since before agriculture developed. This directly strengthens the argument by addressing a key assumption - that the current distribution of wild emmer wheat reflects its ancient distribution. If climate had changed dramatically, wild wheat might have originally grown in many places but only survived in the current narrow strip. By confirming climate stability, we can be more confident that the narrow strip was indeed where wild wheat grew anciently and therefore where domestication first occurred.
This mentions difficulty distinguishing wild emmer wheat from a closely related species without genetic testing. This actually introduces doubt rather than strengthening the argument. If the archaeological remains might not actually be emmer wheat but could be a related species, this undermines rather than supports the conclusion about emmer wheat's domestication location.