Question 162·Hard·Inferences
During an excavation of a ninth-century riverside marketplace along the Danube, archaeologists uncovered several layers of refuse. Goose bones were absent from layers deposited before 860 C.E. but appeared frequently in layers deposited afterward. Nearly all of these goose bones showed distinctive lesions caused by prolonged exposure to mineral-deficient soils. A chemical signature taken from the bones matched the composition of soil surrounding a salt mine located about 300 kilometers upstream; historical records indicate that this mine ceased operations around 850 C.E. Thus, the archaeologists concluded that ____
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For “Which choice most logically completes the text?” questions, first underline the key evidence and especially any time markers, cause-effect clues, and specific details (like the chemical match and the mine’s closure). Before looking at the answers, briefly predict what kind of conclusion would tie those details together (for example, movement of people/animals, a change in practice, or a cause of a new pattern). Then eliminate choices that (1) introduce new, unsupported events, (2) ignore central evidence, or (3) contradict the timing or details given. The correct answer will usually be a modest, reasonable inference that uses all the major clues without going beyond them.
Hints
Locate the key change over time
Focus on the difference before and after 860 C.E. at the marketplace. What appears only in the later layers, and what does that suggest changed?
Use the clues about soil and chemical signatures
Think about what it means that the goose bones have lesions from mineral-deficient soils and that their chemical signature matches the soil near the salt mine 300 kilometers away.
Connect the mine’s closure to the new evidence at the marketplace
The salt mine ceased operations around 850 C.E. How might the closing of a mine affect where people and their animals live, and how does that relate to bones appearing later at a different site?
Watch out for answers that introduce new ideas
Avoid choices that bring in new events (like reopening the mine or new trade patterns) that are not supported by the passage. The conclusion should be based only on what we’re told about the bones, the soil, and the mine’s closure.
Step-by-step Explanation
Pull out the key facts
From the passage, note these points:
- Before 860 C.E., there are no goose bones in the marketplace layers.
- After 860 C.E., goose bones appear frequently.
- These goose bones have lesions caused by long-term exposure to mineral-deficient soils.
- The chemical signature of the bones matches the soil near a salt mine 300 km upstream.
- Historical records say that this salt mine ceased operations around 850 C.E.
The conclusion (the blank) should logically tie all these facts together.
Figure out what must be explained
Ask: What needs explaining?
- Timing: Why do goose bones suddenly appear only after 860 C.E. at the marketplace?
- Lesions: Why do the bones show damage from mineral-deficient soil?
- Location match: Why does the chemical signature in the bones match soil at the former salt mine, not just any soil?
A good conclusion will connect the closure of the mine (~850 C.E.) to the later presence (after 860 C.E.) of geese with bones showing prior life in the mine’s soil.
Eliminate answers that ignore the goose evidence
Look at which choices actually use the evidence about goose bones and soil.
- Choices that mainly talk about salt or trade (not geese, bones, or soil) are likely off-topic.
- The conclusion needs to explain how animals exposed to the salt-mine soil ended up at the marketplace after the mine closed.
Keep in mind: the passage never says anything about salt being shipped or the mine reopening; it only mentions the mine’s closure, the soil around it, and the geese.
Check each remaining choice against all clues
Now test each option against the evidence:
- Does it explain why goose bones appear only after 860 C.E.?
- Does it explain the lesions from mineral-deficient soil?
- Does it use the fact that the bones’ chemical signature matches the salt-mine soil?
- Does it fit with the mine having ceased operations around 850 C.E., without inventing new events?
The only choice that connects mine closure → people/animals leaving the mine area → geese with mine-soil bones showing up later at the marketplace is:
“some residents of the salt-mine region likely relocated to the Danube marketplace after 850 C.E., bringing their geese with them.”