Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destructi

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
From the prompt we know only about pottery of type 3 which WASN'T found in the lower layer. There is no mention of the legendary siege
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
Two historical periods are discussed, the period of the legendary siege and the period when pottery of type 3 was made/used, but there is no confusion.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
Correct. The task was to locate the legendary siege. The prompt suggests that the middle layer contained some pieces of pottery of type 3, and nothing is mentioned about the main motive of the archaeologists' task. We can assume that it did not have anything to do with the legendary siege
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.
No information in this regard is provided, or can be inferred from the prompt.
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.
Completely irrelevant.

Argument:

Middle Layer --- Old --- No details of anything found
Bottom of Middle Layer --- Older --- Pottery found which is possibly made in later period of destruction
Lower Layer --- Oldest --- No details of anything found


Option C clears states that middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.

Please clarify how C is the correct answer

KaranB1, Mishari did a nice run down of the answer choices in this post.

This particular question is a bit tricky in that it flips the usual format of GMAT questions -- instead of the passage containing a conclusion/hypothesis that we must analyze in some way, the passage only contains the evidence. Our task is to find a hypothesis in the answer choices that logically follows from the evidence in the passage.

So let's go through the evidence systematically:

• Archaeologists are excavating a middle and a lower layer of a large mound to find the site of a legendary city that was besieged/destroyed.
• The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city. So, the middle layer was created sometime after the destruction of the city.
• The lower layer does not have any type 3 pottery pieces.

Then, with this evidence in mind, go through each answer choice and add the word "therefore" at the beginning:

As an example, answer choice (A) would be "therefore the lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place."

This clearly doesn't logically follow the evidence in the passage (all we know is that a certain type of pottery is not in the bottom layer). Repeat this process with the other answer choices, and see if that helps you arrive at the correct answer.

I hope this helps!

Hello @ GMATNinja,@ egmat, nightblade354, gmat1393 Bunuel Skywalker18 VeritasKarishma

Could you please Clarify the below doubts:
1. Do we have to assume that the siege happened before the destruction of the City.
What if the city was destroyed first and after that it was besieged.

2. In option A
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.

And in Passage as it is mentioned that pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city -->destruction of city happened before the formation of middle layer--->The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.

And from where the siege took place, it does not matter whether siege took place before or after the destruction.

"siege" means surrounding and attacking a place. So you siege a city and destroy it. It doesn't make sense that you destroy a city and then siege it. There is nothing to siege once you destroy it.

P: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city
P: they are excavating in several possible places:
- a middle of the mound
- lower layer of a mound. (A mound is a small hill. unfortunately, I didn't know what a mound was a this question was a bit tricky because I couldn't get any picture in my head. But if you know what mound means - should be easy.)

P:The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city
P: the lower layer doesn't have this type of pottery

Know that we know that the mound is a small hill. we can assume that the height of the mound was increasing over time and hence the middle layer was built a period after the siege and destruction of the city.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?


(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place: Outside information, cannot verify. the answer is not confirming this. we haven't been given any info about this.

(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.: which legend? loosely related to stimulus.

(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege: this answer is saying that the middle layer doesn't represent a period of attack. since the pottery was from a different period, then it definitely does NOT represent the period of the siege. By Logic, the siege comes first, then comes the distruction of the city.

(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.: outside information.

(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders: outside information.

can we say it is an inference question? GMATNinja

premise talks about material found in the lower part of middle layer.
What about rest part of middle layer?
there is a possibility that one can find evidence of destruction or seize there
can anyone clarify?

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.