Here’s the question:
The earliest known use of cacao—the source of our modern day chocolate—has been pushed back more than 500 years, to somewhere between 1400 and 1100 B.C.E., thanks to new chemical analyses of residues extracted from pottery excavated at an archaeological site at Puerto Escondido in Honduras. The new evidence also indicates that, long before the flavor of the cacao seed (or bean) became popular, it was the sweet pulp of the chocolate fruit, used in making a fermented (5% alcohol) beverage, which first drew attention to the plant in the Americas.
The “new evidence” mentioned in the second sentence is…
1) A recipe for chocolate liquor
2) Chemical analyses of stuff from old pots
3) Sweet pulp of chocolate fruit (mmm….chocolate fruit…)
4) None of the above
See that “new evidence” phrase there? What’s it mean? That’s the real question… so I look at the sentence, and it says the evidence shows that people drank fermented chocolate fruit… mmmm… chocolate wine!! I bet everyone’d buy that…
Anyways, so I look at the answers. I gotta think all logically, like Curtis or someone. Which one of these things would show that people drank chocolate wine? D’oh! They all would… a recipe, or leftover stuff, or maybe they found some chocolate pulp? So, I gotta read again.
First, I think about the recipe. Nowhere does the paragraph say anything about finding a recipe! Whatever the answer is, it gotta be in the article!
Then, I think about the second thing… a chemical analysis, like with a mad scientist in his laboratory, no doubt. Talks about that in the first sentence… “thanks to new chemical analyses of residues extracted from pottery.” Then, in the second sentence, it says the new evidence ALSO says… so it must be the evidence they talked about before. Who knew? There’s like scientists, who go around figuring out what the icky stuff on the bottom of old pots is. Man, they’d like to see my kitchen.
Yeah, the answer’s gotta be B. Did you get it?
