Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Sep 2014, 20:37

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 294 [1] , given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink] New post 19 May 2008, 19:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (02:13) correct 35% (02:03) wrong based on 90 sessions
18.
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

I lost somewhere!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership


Last edited by ankurgupta03 on 09 Jun 2014, 05:40, edited 1 time in total.
added the OA
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 798
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 25

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 19 May 2008, 19:56
B
sondenso wrote:
18.
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
This would weaken the argument
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
Yes this provide further proof that trade goods would be found if the dating is later than 1620
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
no..
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
nothing about explorers..
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
this would not strength the argument since if it were used every few years, then there might be european good left
I lost somewhere!
Expert Post
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3571
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 365

Kudos [?]: 1808 [0], given: 358

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 19 May 2008, 20:10
Expert's post
I guess it is C.

The argument depends on the assumption that:
if European good were at a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek, Archaeologists have to find these goods during excavations.

Otherwise, absence of European goods at camp can also mean that these goods were destroyed that, in turn, destroys the conclusion.
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 798
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 19 May 2008, 20:16
Is it A?

If there is no trade goods in the camp, and european trade goods arrived before the europeans. Then it is safe to say that the camp was not in use at the time the europeans arrived. Furthermore, the native americans would be likely to trust and trade with each other first (for european's goods) before they would trade with the europeans. So even if the europeans arrived in the 1620s, it might had taken them a while to gain the trust and trade with the natives.

B seems like a trap, because the camps might have dated to the 1620s but if the camps were continued to be in use until much later, they would certainly contain trade goods that arrived much later.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1467
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 20 May 2008, 13:38
This one really kicks my butt. My guess is A, B, C are possible...
Awaiting help...
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 20 May 2008, 18:36
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2995
Followers: 56

Kudos [?]: 438 [0], given: 210

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 25 May 2008, 19:20
Any explanations as to why B is incorrect ?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 795
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 01 Jun 2008, 11:57
Can someone explain the logic here...I don't even understand what it is saying in the premises and conclusion...Can someone explain the time sequence here?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 116
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 01 Jun 2008, 12:20
Need explanation.
B says camp must be dated before 1630. But no remains were found to support it. So date should be much earlier to 1630. Okay, so somehow it supports the answer. (Because we have a concrete date).
_________________

Many people dream, but some wake up and work towards it.

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 795
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 01 Jun 2008, 13:10
I don't even see the logic...Is this saying that the camp is existed between 1605 and 1755 based on carbon dating, but the camp is probably died off before 1630, because there was no european goods at the site, and those goods stated coming into the area at 1620....That means there is a 10 year difference between the two? I do not understand the logic...can someone spell it out for a idiot like me.
4 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1323
Schools: Tuck
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 117 [4] , given: 6

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2008, 13:47
4
This post received
KUDOS
Here is my thinking:

a) "Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755."

- this is what I call evidence A, it is not indispute.

b) "However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward."

- this a conclusion (in bold) and the additional evidence (evidence B)
- evidence B has two parts too: "since no European trade goods were found at the site" is support for the conclusion AND "European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward" is support for the first phrase ""since no European..."
- if someone were to attack the argument, they will attack the phrase "since no European trade goods were found at the site" because there are other ways for the goods to get there other than by "European traders were active in the region"

c) before I even read the answers, I try and figure out what would strengthen (in this case) the conclusion.

- well the it HAS to concern the presence or absence of European trade goods, since that was the evidence (evidence B) used to arrive at the conclusion. So focus on answers that concern European goods.

- it's sometimes helpful to think about what would weaken the argument, since that is likely a wrong answer. In this case, if there was another way for the European goods to get to the site, that would weaken the argument. However, we want to strengthen the argument, so the right answer will likely provide evidence that will weaken any statements that weaken the argument (if that makes sense)

- for example, I would think "well, what if someone else brought the goods to the site?". Ok, what would weaken that argument? Well, if other local camps didn't have any goods before the Europeans got there, that is pretty good evidence that the only way the goods could have got there is from the presence of European traders. This would support the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site".

**of course, I wouldn't necessarily come to that exact conclusion, but I would be thinking along those lines

This is all BEFORE I look at the questions. It's helps clarify in your mind what is relevant and what is not. You're unlikely to actually come up with the right answer yourself, but thinking in this way will help clarify your own understanding of the argument.

Now onto the answers....

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

This obviously weaken the argument. It is evidence that weakens evidence B

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

This strengthens evidence B. If all the other camps in the region had them in the late 1620s, then the likelihood that this camp had them at that time is pretty high. Remember, the basis of the conclusion is that the camp is from before the 1630s because it DIDN'T have any goods. This answer backs up the idea that if the camp was from after 1630, it almost certainly would have contained European goods (just like the other camps in the region). This directly supports the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site"

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

Irrelevant. It provides no information on whether the camp in question would European goods or not.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

Also irrelevant. Nothing was said about European explorers, so it provides no support either way.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

Also irrelevant. Whether the camp was seasonal or not provides no support either way.

Hope that helps.

NN
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1323
Schools: Tuck
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 117 [1] , given: 6

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2008, 13:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
jimmyjamesdonkey wrote:
I don't even see the logic...Is this saying that the camp is existed between 1605 and 1755 based on carbon dating, but the camp is probably died off before 1630, because there was no european goods at the site, and those goods stated coming into the area at 1620....That means there is a 10 year difference between the two? I do not understand the logic...can someone spell it out for a idiot like me.


That's the GMAT writers messing with your head.

------------
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
--------------

The phrases "no later than 1630", means the camp dates to sometime between 1605 and 1630.

The correct answer states "(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found."

Note they didn't say "dated to 1630", but rather "late 1620s". They do that just to confuse you. Since the conclusion simply states "no later than 1630" and the answer B says "dated to the late 1620s", they are still in agreement (since late 1620s is no later than 1630).

NN
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 795
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2008, 14:06
are we sure the 1630 isn't just a typo?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2008, 15:05
I'd pick B

18.
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
out of scope
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
I read this as all camps dated to 1620 and later had european goods, which strengthens the assertion from the passage that the camp probably dates to no later than 1630 (no later than 1630 would be 1629, which is a year in the late 1620's)
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
out of scope
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
unrelated
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
introduces new information, out of scope
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2008, 19:40
Nognig, I have been gone with the WIND of posts :lol: , I forgot sending my words of "thanks" to your help! Your reasoning is really helpful. I wish to see more the same thorough reasoning for other questions- my ambition! :P
Thanks!



nognig wrote:
for example, I would think "well, what if someone else brought the goods to the site?". Ok, what would weaken that argument? Well, if other local camps didn't have any goods before the Europeans got there, that is pretty good evidence that the only way the goods could have got there is from the presence of European traders. This would support the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site".

**of course, I wouldn't necessarily come to that exact conclusion, but I would be thinking along those lines

This is all BEFORE I look at the questions. It's helps clarify in your mind what is relevant and what is not. You're unlikely to actually come up with the right answer yourself, but thinking in this way will help clarify your own understanding of the argument.

Now onto the answers....

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

This obviously weaken the argument. It is evidence that weakens evidence B

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

This strengthens evidence B. If all the other camps in the region had them in the late 1620s, then the likelihood that this camp had them at that time is pretty high. Remember, the basis of the conclusion is that the camp is from before the 1630s because it DIDN'T have any goods. This answer backs up the idea that if the camp was from after 1630, it almost certainly would have contained European goods (just like the other camps in the region). This directly supports the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site"

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

Irrelevant. It provides no information on whether the camp in question would European goods or not.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

Also irrelevant. Nothing was said about European explorers, so it provides no support either way.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

Also irrelevant. Whether the camp was seasonal or not provides no support either way.

Hope that helps.


nognig wrote:
That's the GMAT writers messing with your head.

------------
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
--------------

The phrases "no later than 1630", means the camp dates to sometime between 1605 and 1630.

The correct answer states "(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found."

Note they didn't say "dated to 1630", but rather "late 1620s". They do that just to confuse you. Since the conclusion simply states "no later than 1630" and the answer B says "dated to the late 1620s", they are still in agreement (since late 1620s is no later than 1630).

_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership


Last edited by sondenso on 03 Jun 2008, 19:54, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2008, 19:49
jimmyjamesdonkey wrote:
are we sure the 1630 isn't just a typo?


Jimmy, it is not typing error! just make sure that you got the logic here! Probaply, you will see it in the real. I am a foreseer! :lol:
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 795
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Re: CR.Prep. Archaeologists [#permalink] New post 04 Jun 2008, 04:17
I see now!!! the word "late" is key to B being right!!!!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 85
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 29

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2012, 23:30
can anyone explain why is option c incorrect
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2004
Followers: 266

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2013, 23:57
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 649
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 415 [0], given: 342

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink] New post 09 Jun 2014, 05:41
Bumping the topic.
Any insights on what is wrong with C?
_________________

ISB Class of 2016 | Chat Session with ISB ADCOM | How to get started with Essays | GMAT Retake Debrief - 760 | ISB Preparation Kit
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISB Class of 2015 | My GMAT Debrief | My ISB Interview | General interview tips | How to tackle "Do you have anything to ask" question

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American   [#permalink] 09 Jun 2014, 05:41
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 GMATPREP ChallengeQ -Archaeologists in Michigan have excavat PiyushK 3 12 Aug 2014, 00:43
Archaeologists in Egypt have excavated a 5,000-year-old apurva1985 3 25 Jul 2008, 08:07
Archaeologists in Egypt have excavated a 5,000-year-old suyashjhawar 8 21 Apr 2008, 17:37
It is possible that Native Americans originally have karlfurt 7 22 Aug 2006, 12:52
8 Archaeologists in Egypt have excavated a 5,000 year old themagiccarpet 7 16 Nov 2005, 02:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.