<p>If the materials were traded, they would not be subject to the characteristics the author has laid out for Catalhoyuk being all marshy. The evidence would not validate the findings.</p>
<p>@ Conn. yes it was.</p>
<p>Which fact, if true would most directly ?prove? the assertion that they farmed distant lands?</p>
<p>That they traded = WRONG i believe
That they shared land w/ neighbors = BEST ANSWER i believe</p>
<p>Quoting almostsk8er:</p>
<p>"It doesn’t make sense that they shared land with neighbors because neighbors imply proximity and thus the seeds would show some kind of wet marshland effect.</p>
<p>However, by having wheat and barley traded, which implies long distance, the commodities would not show the wet marshland effect."</p>
<p>@alargeblackman
In which case, I think you’re hinting about the questions with Galileo’s discoveries. They were there to validate what he said, despite the legends that existed.</p>
<p>the assertion was that THEY FARMED distant lands, not that their crops CAME FROM distant lands. (IMO of course,i’m not trying to sound cocky)</p>
<p>Yet if the wood for their houses couldn’t withstand a marshy environment (letter E), wouldn’t this imply that they in fact didn’t live in the marshland and were therefore closer to their crops, thus disproving the theory that they farmed remotely?</p>
<p>@msteiny: the reason why this question was addressed in the first place was because they COULD NOT grow crops in the marshland. So thus, either they farmed far away or they traded to acquire them.</p>
<p>that doesn’t matter, we’re talking about which fact would most likely support the assertion. trading by no means suggests that they grew in distant lands.
I think trading is irrelevant completely, as we were finding the fact that would support their own farming, not where the goods came from.</p>
<p>The snag still remains that neighborship(word?) implies proximity</p>
<p>No… we are looking at what would prove the assertion false… (The assertion was that they farmed in distant lands) Or am I remembering this wrong?</p>
<p>hey guys, sorry to interrupt but i have a question on the photography passage
i believe it said the author of passage 2 would most likely add which of the following questions to the ones the author of passage one stated in lines …
i was stuck between one about the tolerance of human weakness and noticing the problems in the world, does anyone remember this question??</p>
<p>@ARobins the question was which fact would DISPROVE the theory presented in the passage (that they farmed away from where they lived). There is nothing about supporting the assertion.</p>
<p>I was almost positive we were examining what would “most directly support” it, but now you have me doubting it.</p>
<p>If that were the case, trading would be correct, as they are not farming distantly, but acquiring the crops from distant tribes.</p>
<p>It was certainly trading. I think you guys also forgot that the passage said the village was in the “smack middle” of the marsh and that would imply that neighbors would also be in the marsh.</p>
<p>Darn, you are correct. Is it at all possible that this was experimental? I doubt it, as I also had the Disney passage that nobody else seemed to have…</p>
<p>I am pretty sure the question asked what would support the implication (i.e. prove that the Catalhuyuk’s did farm distant lands).</p>
<p>And the consensus for the traffic engineer analogy is…?</p>
<p>Science Teacher
Recycling Guy
Government Official w/ Energy</p>
<p>@FutureDoctor12: I REALLY hope we are right.</p>
<p>Robins, what did you put?</p>
<p>I put sharing land with neighbors for the farming question.</p>
<p>I put government official for the traffic analogy, but am having doubts as governments are involved. Recycling Guy seemed to get a lot of support in this thread =[</p>
<p>See writing section for the speed of sound question <em>furious</em></p>