Question

Difficulty: MediumComparative Reading: Main Point and Contention

Passage A
The sudden abandonment of Classic Maya cities in the ninth century CE is best explained by severe, multi-decade droughts. Detailed paleoclimatic records from lake sediments in the Yucatán Peninsula reveal an unprecedented dry period coinciding exactly with the cessation of monumental construction and population decline. While internal political strife and warfare undoubtedly occurred, they were ultimate symptoms of resource scarcity rather than the root cause of the collapse. Without sufficient rainfall to sustain their agricultural base, the highly centralized political structures of the Maya inevitably fragmented, as rulers could no longer claim divine favor or provide for their populations.

Passage B
To attribute the Classic Maya collapse primarily to climate change is to ignore the complex sociopolitical dynamics of the era. Decades before the severe droughts of the late ninth century, Maya city-states were engaged in increasingly destructive warfare, as evidenced by defensive fortifications and shifts in artistic representations favoring militaristic themes. The ruling elite's relentless demands for labor and resources to fund both warfare and monumental architecture stretched the economic system to its breaking point. Consequently, the ensuing droughts merely served as a catalyst, accelerating the dissolution of a society already fatally weakened by endemic conflict and unsustainable political structures.

Evaluate the following statement based on the two passages:

The primary point of contention between the two authors is whether intense warfare and political strife were present during the period leading up to the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False
The correct evaluation is False because both authors explicitly acknowledge the presence of warfare. Passage A clearly states that 'internal political strife and warfare undoubtedly occurred,' while Passage B places warfare at the center of its argument. Their primary contention is not whether warfare occurred, but rather the causal role it played (a symptom of environmental stress versus the primary driver of societal collapse).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Passage A to determine the author's main argument and views on warfare.
Passage A argues that drought was the root cause of the collapse and explicitly states that warfare was present, though only as a 'symptom of resource scarcity'.
Establishing the first author's exact position is necessary for any comparison.
2
Analyze Passage B to determine the author's main argument and views on warfare.
Passage B argues that sociopolitical dynamics, particularly destructive warfare, were the primary cause of the collapse, with drought acting merely as a catalyst.
Establishing the second author's position enables the identification of agreements and disagreements.
3
Compare both views regarding the presence of warfare and evaluate the given statement.
Both authors agree that warfare was present. Therefore, the statement claiming their primary contention is whether warfare occurred is incorrect.
The core of a comparative contention question requires identifying where the authors' views actively conflict versus where they align on shared premises.

Key Concept

Identifying the precise point of disagreement in comparative reading passages, distinguishing between shared premises and conflicting conclusions.
Rate this question