Digital SATReading and Writing: Information and IdeasHard
A historian is examining two competing theories about the decline of the Mayan civilization. Theory A posits that prolonged drought led to widespread agricultural collapse and subsequent societal breakdown. Theory B suggests that internal warfare and political instability were the primary drivers of decline, exacerbated by environmental pressures. The historian finds archaeological evidence showing a significant increase in defensive structures and mass graves containing victims of violence during the period of decline. Additionally, analysis of skeletal remains from this era indicates widespread malnutrition, but also a higher proportion of individuals with healed injuries consistent with combat. Which of the following statements best describes how this new evidence relates to the two theories?
- AThe evidence disproves both theories by introducing entirely new factors.
- BThe evidence strengthens Theory B while also suggesting a contributing role for environmental factors.
- CThe evidence is inconclusive and equally supports both Theory A and Theory B.
- DThe evidence primarily supports Theory A by confirming agricultural collapse.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. The evidence strengthens Theory B while also suggesting a contributing role for environmental factors.
The 'increase in defensive structures and mass graves containing victims of violence' directly supports Theory B's focus on 'internal warfare and political instability.' The 'widespread malnutrition' supports environmental pressures, which Theory B states 'exacerbated' the decline. Thus, it strengthens B and shows environmental factors as a contributor, aligning perfectly with B's nuance.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. The evidence directly relates to factors mentioned in both theories (malnutrition/environment, warfare/instability), so it doesn't introduce 'entirely new factors' that disprove both.
- C. The evidence for warfare is much stronger and more specific to Theory B, making it not 'equally supportive' of both.
- D. While malnutrition could suggest agricultural issues (related to Theory A), the strong evidence for warfare (defensive structures, mass graves, combat injuries) is not addressed by Theory A as a primary driver, making 'primarily supports Theory A' incorrect.
Evaluating Competing Theories
Assessing how new evidence supports, weakens, or refutes different explanations for a phenomenon by comparing their core tenets.
- Requires identifying the central claims of each theory.
- Involves analyzing evidence for direct support or contradiction.
- Often reveals that theories are not mutually exclusive but can be complementary.
Memory trick: Theories, Test, Tally: Do the 'T'ruths align?