Passage Summary: A historian claims that the pharaohs' giant monuments weren't just vanity projects; they were actually a clever political tool to keep people in line through awe rather than violence.

Conclusion: The massive spending by early Egyptian pharaohs on ceremonial buildings was not a waste of resources.

Reasoning: Impressing the public with grand architecture demonstrated the ruler's power, which ensured citizen loyalty without the need for expensive military force.

Analysis: The statement in question serves as the main conclusion of the historian's argument. I identified it by noticing the pivot word 'however,' which signals the author's disagreement with the idea of 'frivolousness,' followed by a 'for' clause that provides the supporting evidence. In this structure, the author is setting up a common misconception only to knock it down with their own thesis. It’s a classic 'work smarter, not harder' approach to ancient governance.