Text 1
In 2022, a team led by Paul N. Pearson analyzed several gold coins alleged to feature an otherwise unknown third century Roman emperor named Sponsianus, discerning micro-abrasion patterns in the coins that suggested they had endured prolonged circulation. Previously, the coins were long believed to be early eighteenth century forgeries. Pearson
suggests that this wear-and-tear on the coins is strong evidence for them being authentic Roman era relics.
Text 2
Aleksander Bursche and Kyrylo Myzgin, a pair of Polish archaeologists, questioned the methodology of Pearson's team, which did not use known third century Roman coins as a basis for comparison for their abrasion. Furthermore, they highlighted the unorthodox iconography of the Sponsianus coins, which feature a mixture of republican and imperial symbols not observed in other Roman coinage.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
Correct
Incorrect
When a Connections question provides an underlined claim, start by paraphrasing it: the wear-and-tear on some Roman coins suggests that they are the real deal. The rest of the text provides context, so read it quickly. The short version is some gold coins featuring an alleged Roman Emperor called Sponsianus were thought to be fakes, but the abrasions on them suggest they were circulated from person to person like real coins.
Now, paraphrase the main idea of Text 2: the study in Text 1 is not just wrong, it is also poorly done. Pearson's team did not compare the Sponsianus coins, showing an otherwise unknown third century Roman emperor, to proven Roman coins from the same time period. Finally, connect the two texts: the Polish archaeologists in Text 2 would say the wear-and-tear on the coins is no evidence at all for the coins being authentic. Pearson's team did not compare the coins they were studying to known coins from the same time period. So, predict that the author of Text 2 would most likely respond negatively to the underlined claim in Text 1. Because two of the answer choice options use negative language, an elimination approach may be helpful here.
Eliminate (A) because it is a distortion; Text 2 not only questions the failure to compare the Sponsianus coins to known third century Roman coins, they point out that the study offered no explanation for a major oddity about the Sponsianus coins, that they mix republican and imperial symbols in a way that no other Roman coin does. Eliminate (B) because it is out of scope; the Polish archaeologists in Text 2 only object to the analysis of the Sponsianus coins because they are not being compared to known Roman coins from the third century. There is no mention of them objecting to the micro-abrasion patterns. Choice (C) is correct because the Polish archaeologists objected to Pearson's team not comparing the Sponsianus coins to Roman coins proven to be from the third century. On test day, choose (C) with confidence and move to the next question, but for practice: eliminate (D) because, while the Polish archaeologists raise the issue of the odd mix of symbols, their main objection to the micro-abrasion study was that Pearson's team did not use known third century Roman coins as a basis for comparison regarding abrasion.
