RC Question 18 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The tokens are discussed on lines 11-39. It’s not a bad idea to quickly skim over those lines before looking at the answers.
The right answer will be directly supported by the passage. If you’ve just looked at all the relevant information, you can quickly find the line reference that proves the answer. Then you don’t have to waste time on wrong answers – most of which will be traps that jumble together two unrelated concepts.
I’m not suggesting you read everything again. Ideally, you already remember some of the information in the passage. So with a quick skim, you can refresh your memory.
___________
- This is a trap answer. Tokens were easily able to represent quantity: two tokens had a quantity of two, three tokens had a quantity of three, etc.
- CORRECT. Lines 33-37 say this directly. Some tokens, for example, now looked like bowls, or jars with handles.
- While some tokens had inscriptions, the passage doesn’t say this was the sole reason their meaning was understood. Schmandt-Besserat used these inscriptions to develop her theory, but it never claims that understanding the tokens depended entirely on these inscriptions.
- The author doesn’t say what “most archaeologists” thought of the tokens. All they say is that some thought they were amulets or game pieces. See lines 15-17.
- The passage doesn’t say this. Instead, lines 33-37 merely say that the tokens themselves became more diverse, with new figures.
We don’t know how heavy the tokens were or whether the system had become unwieldy.
It says “the earliest of the tokens were simple in form-small cones, spheres, and pyramids- and they were often inscribed.” So how did you conclude in your explanation of answer choice C that the passage did not say that the tokens were inscribed?
You’re completely right, thanks for catching that! I have updated the explanation for C.
(c) actually the passage does say that the “tokens[…] were often inscribed” lines 20-22. But I would agree this answer is clearly wrong.