Re: No one can argue that the Roman arch did not solve the architectural p
[#permalink]
30 May 2025, 04:00
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
C, F, H
The first missing word describes the relationship of "problems" to "traditional post and beam construction" before those problems were "solved." We can predict that the first blank holds a word meaning "affected in a negative way," such as "troubled" or "plagued." Choice (C) beset, which can mean "to trouble," matches our prediction and is correct. Choice (A) galvanize can mean "provoke into sudden activity," which does not logically describe how problems would affect post and beam construction, so this choice is incorrect. Choice (B) succored means "aided," which is the opposite of our prediction, so this choice is also incorrect.
The second blank will be filled by a word that describes the Roman arch. Because we know it solved problems that beset traditional post and beam construction, we can predict that the second missing word will mean something like "advance." Choice (F) innovation, a "new idea or method," matches our prediction and is correct. Choices (D) transformation and (E) alteration both mean "change," but are lacking. The Roman arch was not merely a change but an improvement, and the correct answer must reflect that fact. Hence, (D) and (E) are incorrect.
In the second sentence, the author is asserting that a development attributed to the Romans was actually developed in an earlier time period. The clues "dated back to" and "even more" indicate that the third missing word will simply mean "very old." All three choices for the third blank have similar meanings, but choice (H) ancient, is neutral in tone, so it is correct. Choices (G) superannuated and (I) obsolete also mean "old," but they connote the idea of being "out of use" or "out of date." The idea of a culture no longer being trendy or fashionable makes no sense in the context of the sentence, so ( G ) and ( I ) are incorrect.
Answer choices (C), (F), and (H) are the correct answers.