Question 167·Medium·Inferences
For decades, archaeologists studying the inland Valdaran ruins assumed its Bronze Age inhabitants subsisted almost entirely on locally herded sheep and barley. In 2021, however, residue analyses from cooking pots recovered across the site revealed lipids and isotopic signatures consistent with marine fish and kelp, and several refuse pits contained bones from species native to Atlantic coastal waters. The settlement’s occupation layers indicate year-round residence, and the nearest coast lies more than 150 kilometers away. Based on these findings, the researchers propose that the Valdaran community most likely _____
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For inference completion questions like this, first re-read the final sentence or two and restate the basic puzzle or contrast in your own words. Identify the key constraints (here: inland location, year-round residence, clear coastal/marine evidence, large distance to the sea). Then treat each answer choice as a hypothesis explaining those facts: cross out any choice that directly contradicts a stated detail or adds a big, unsupported idea. Among the remaining options, choose the one that best and most simply accounts for all the evidence without requiring extra assumptions.
Hints
Notice the contrast in the passage
Focus on how the passage contrasts the inland, year-round settlement with the discovery of marine fish and kelp. What problem are the researchers trying to explain?
Pay attention to distance and residence details
Look carefully at the phrases "year-round residence" and "more than 150 kilometers away." Which options are compatible with a permanently occupied inland site that far from the coast?
Watch out for new, unsupported ideas
Check which answer choices introduce complex activities (like large construction projects or big seasonal moves) that are not mentioned in the passage. On SAT questions like this, avoid explanations that add major new claims without evidence.
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify what the question is asking
The question asks what the researchers "most likely" propose based on these findings. That means you must:
- Summarize the key evidence in the passage.
- Choose the option that best explains that evidence without contradicting any details.
Identify the key facts from the passage
Pull out the crucial information:
- The site is inland, and the nearest coast is more than 150 kilometers away.
- The settlement shows year-round residence (they did not just live there occasionally).
- Residues in pots and bones in pits match marine fish, kelp, and Atlantic coastal species.
So there is strong evidence of marine (ocean) foods at a permanent, inland settlement far from the coast.
Use the key facts to test each choice
Now check each option against the evidence:
- Choice B: Suggests they built canals to bring seawater inland and raised marine species there. The passage never mentions canals or water engineering, and bringing seawater 150+ km inland is a huge, unsupported leap.
- Choice C: Suggests the whole community seasonally moved to the coast to fish, then quickly returned. This clashes with the detail that the occupation layers indicate year-round residence at the inland site.
- Choice D: Says the researchers mistook freshwater remains for marine ones. But the passage states that residue analyses and bones matched marine fish, kelp, and Atlantic coastal species, implying confidence in those identifications, not doubt.
Only one remaining type of explanation fits: the community stayed inland year-round but still somehow got marine foods.
Select the explanation that fits all evidence
If the community lived inland year-round yet had clear evidence of marine fish and kelp, the most reasonable conclusion is that these foods were brought to them from the coast, likely preserved for transport over 150+ km. That matches choice A: obtained coastal foods through trade networks that transported preserved fish inland.