CAT 2023 Slot 2 — VARC Question 17
There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide where (option 1, 2, 3, or 4) the following sentence would best fit.
Sentence: And probably much earlier, moving the documentation for kissing back 1,000 years compared to what was acknowledged in the scientific community.
Paragraph: Research has hypothesised that the earliest evidence of human lip kissing originated in a very specific geographical location in South Asia 3,500 years ago.___(1)___. From there it may have spread to other regions, simultaneously accelerating the spread of the herpes simplex virus 1. According to Dr Troels Pank Arbøll and Dr Sophie Lund Rasmussen, who in a new article in the journal Science draw on a range of written sources from the earliest Mesopotamian societies, kissing was already a well-established practice 4,500 years ago in the Middle East.___(2)___. In ancient Mesopotamia, people wrote in cuneiform script on clay tablets.___(3)___. Many thousands of these clay tablets have survived to this day, and they contain clear examples that kissing was considered a part of romantic intimacy in ancient times.___(4)___. “Kissing could also have been part of friendships and family members' relations," says Dr Troels Pank Arbøll, an expert on the history of medicine in Mesopotamia.
Answer & solution
- A
Option 4
Option 2
- C
Option 3
- D
Option 1
Easy
The missing sentence pushes the date of kissing back "1,000 years compared to what was acknowledged in the scientific community." So it must sit right after a stated date/finding — and just before something that compares that finding with a different, later date.
The sentence begins "And probably much earlier..." — it extends a claim already made about a date. Look for the spot whose preceding sentence ends with a specific dated finding.
Just before blank (2) the text says kissing "was already a well-established practice 4,500 years ago in the Middle East." The missing sentence then says "And probably much earlier... moving the documentation back 1,000 years compared to what was acknowledged" — i.e. earlier than the 3,500-year figure mentioned in the opening. This directly continues the 4,500-years finding.
Blanks (1), (3), (4) fail: (1) follows the South-Asia origin and is itself about spread "from there"; (3) and (4) sit inside the cuneiform-tablets sub-topic, which has nothing to do with re-dating the practice. Only (2) gives the date-pushing logic a home.
Option 2 — the sentence belongs at blank (2), extending the "4,500 years ago" dating.