Question

built to last
how roman harbors have stood the test of time
the circular harbor at caesarea, which sits on the coast of israel, was
constructed in less than 10 years, from roughly 23 to 15 b.c., on the order of
king herod, ruler of the roman province of judaea. the site chosen was an
unobstructed length of coastline with no natural geographic features to
break the waves rolling into shore or protect ships. the port’s construction
was nothing short of a roman engineering marvel, comparable to the
colosseum or the aqueducts.
2
much of the vast structure, which includes two breakwaters, three
underwater piers that once held large statues, and a 60 - foot - wide entrance
for ships, stands today. the scholar josephus’ description, written nearly
2,000 years ago, still rings true: “herod contended with the difficulties so
well that the sea could not overcome the solidity of the construction.”
3
the trick to caesarea’s longevity was the concrete used to build the
harbor. for more than a decade, john oleson, a classical archaeologist at the
university of victoria, in british columbia, has pursued the secrets of roman
harbors and their impressive durability. “people have been studying roman
concrete for 500 or 600 years, but they haven’t done much with the concrete
in the sea because it’s more difficult to access. also, until recently, people
thought it was not as important as what you find on land,” says oleson.
4
as head of the roman maritime concrete study (or romacons), oleson,
along with university of colorado boulder maritime archaeologist bob
hohlfelder and british architect chris brandon, examined samples from
several ancient roman ports. they found that there was, in fact, a key
ingredient that made the material uniquely suited to hold up to the
underwater environment.
5
the romans started building with concrete regularly beginning in the

question #9
how does the author best develop the point of view
in the correct answer from part a?

1. by comparing the ingredients that were used

in different types of concrete over time

1. by describing the efficiency of the ships that

brought in goods and departed with
pozzolana

1. by quoting researchers who explain both the

concrete used and the results of having
harbors

1. by including details about geographical

features and the devastation caused by
mount vesuvius

1. the romans greatly expanded the roman

empire by making their unique building
materials a significant part of their trade.

1. the romans were clever in their use of

materials to build ports that enabled them to
achieve larger goals for the roman empire.

Explanation:

Part A (assuming the question is about how the author develops the point, but since the full Part A isn't clear, let's focus on the visible Part B options. Wait, the user's problem has multiple sub-questions, but let's tackle the visible ones. First, let's assume the Part B question is about how the author develops the point, and the options are as follows (from the image):

Part B Question (How does the author best develop the point of view?):

Looking at the options:

1. by comparing the ingredients that were used in different types of concrete over time.
2. by describing the efficiency of the ships that brought in goods and departed with pozzalana.
3. by quoting researchers who explain both the concrete used and the results of having harbors.
4. by including details about geographical features and the devastation caused by Mount Vesuvius.

To solve this, we analyze the passage: The passage talks about researchers (John Oleson, Bob Hohlfelder, Chris Brandon) examining Roman concrete and harbors. Option 3 says "by quoting researchers who explain both the concrete used and the results of having harbors" – this matches, as the passage includes quotes from researchers about Roman concrete and harbors. Option 1: no comparison of ingredients over time. Option 2: ships' efficiency isn't the focus. Option 4: Mount Vesuvius isn't mentioned in the harbor-related part. So the correct answer is option 3.

Now, if there was a Part A (not fully visible, but let's assume the Part A was about the Roman harbors' material, and the correct option from Part A was about the material being unique for underwater, then Part B's correct answer ties to that by using researchers to explain the concrete and harbors).

But focusing on the visible Part B:

The author uses quotes from researchers (e.g., John Oleson, Bob Hohlfelder) who explain Roman concrete and harbor results. Option 1: no ingredient comparison over time. Option 2: ships’ efficiency is not the focus. Option 4: Mount Vesuvius is irrelevant. Only option 3 matches the passage’s use of researcher quotes to explain concrete and harbors.

Answer:

1. by quoting researchers who explain both the concrete used and the results of having harbors