Question 105·Hard·Transitions
Archaeologists excavating ancient coastal settlements have found abundant fish bones, suggesting that maritime resources once formed the basis of local diets. ______ isotope analysis of human remains from the same sites indicates that most individuals consumed primarily terrestrial plants.
Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?
For SAT transition questions, first ignore the answer choices and decide how the second sentence relates to the first: is it adding similar information, contrasting, showing cause/effect, giving an example, or summarizing? Then look at the options and choose the one whose meaning matches that relationship, quickly testing it in the sentence. Avoid picking a word just because it “sounds right”; always justify it by the logical connection between the two ideas.
Hints
Compare the two sentences carefully
Summarize the first sentence in your own words: What does the presence of abundant fish bones suggest about what people were eating?
Check if the second sentence agrees or disagrees
Now summarize the second sentence: What does the isotope analysis say people actually ate? Does this match or conflict with the suggestion from the fish bones?
Match the relationship to a type of transition
Once you know whether the ideas agree, cause each other, or contradict each other, choose the transition that best signals that specific relationship between the sentences.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand what each sentence is saying
First sentence: Finding many fish bones "suggests" that sea (maritime) resources were the main part of local diets.
Second sentence: Isotope analysis of human remains shows that most people actually ate mostly terrestrial (land) plants.
So the first sentence sets up an expectation (marine-based diet), and the second sentence presents information that goes against that expectation (plant-based diet).
Decide the logical relationship between the ideas
Ask: Does the second sentence
- support or continue the first idea?
- give a result of the first idea?
- give an example of the first idea?
- or contradict / go against the first idea?
Here, the physical evidence (fish bones) and the chemical evidence (isotopes) point in opposite directions. That means the relationship is contrast: the second sentence challenges what the first one seems to suggest.
Match the relationship to the best transition
Now test each option against that contrast relationship:
- "Similarly," would show the second sentence agrees with or is like the first, but the ideas disagree.
- "Because of this," would show cause and effect, but the second sentence is not a result of finding fish bones; it is conflicting evidence.
- "To illustrate," would introduce an example of the first sentence, but the second is not an example; it opposes the first.
- "Nonetheless," shows contrast—"even so" or "despite that"—which fits the opposing evidence.
Therefore, the most logical transition is "Nonetheless," (Choice B).