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

It is currently 23 Sep 2014, 10:28

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

Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1736
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [1] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 07 Jul 2005, 18:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

77% (02:27) correct 23% (03:11) wrong based on 185 sessions
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti’s existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 107
Location: NYC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 07 Jul 2005, 18:49
I'll go with 'E'
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 07 Jul 2005, 19:40
One more for E
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 76
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 07 Jul 2005, 22:36
..E
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1736
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Jul 2005, 21:01
OA is E...
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 388
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 32

CAT Tests
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 29 Aug 2012, 13:31
HIMALAYA wrote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti’s existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.
No reasoning provided for this question :roll: :?: Can CR champs comment on this one? I got this wrong.... :x
_________________

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: exam is close ... dont know if i ll hit that number
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
Posts: 207
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 10-09-2012
GPA: 3.2
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 1

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 29 Aug 2012, 19:57
even working on this for 3min
got it wrong ..
can anybody please give explanation..
_________________

just one more month for exam...

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1726
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 66

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 109

GMAT Tests User
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 01 Sep 2012, 11:26
+1 E

Maybe this article can help you in your strategy ;)

http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... reasoning/
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Expert Post
4 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 2094
Followers: 515

Kudos [?]: 2138 [4] , given: 30

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 02 Apr 2013, 10:47
4
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
HIMALAYA wrote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.

fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike, Can you kindly explain this question as i am not to understand the options. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame

What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 12

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 05:15
mikemcgarry wrote:
HIMALAYA wrote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.

fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike, Can you kindly explain this question as i am not to understand the options. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame

What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)



Mike, Thanks for the detailed explanation. This question is very tricky and unfortunately I still have doubts..
In this question, we need to counter the argument which mentions the analogy between existence of trade and Yeti Example.
Countering the argument will mean presenting facts which undermines the analogy. Analogy is that absence of written records (Absence of Sighting of Yeti) cannot imply that Trade did not exist (that Yeti does not exist).

Question is how to undermine this analogy. I thought the best answer choice would be one that implies 'The absence of written records indeed means lack of trade', I could not find any option in the answer choices very convincing.

I am completely lost in the analogy, would request you to explain option 'E' and how it counters the analogy in the argument..

Thanks..
3 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1081
Location: United States
Followers: 124

Kudos [?]: 1296 [3] , given: 120

Premium Member
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 21:50
3
This post received
KUDOS
HIMALAYA wrote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti’s existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.


What makes this question difficult, I think the answer lies on the question stem "best counter the argument". But what argument you should counter?

The author says: "No written records --> No trade" is NOT correct. He uses a similar example: "No evidence of Yeti --> Yeti did not exist" is WRONG, because even no evidence, Yeti actually existed.
In short, the author's conclusion is: No written records --> DOES NOT MEAN "No trade".

You should attack his conclusion by showing that:"No written records --> No trade" is CORRECT.

E says: There are written records that do not mention trade. But if trade actually had existed, the records would have been mentioned. --> It means "No written records --> No trade" is CORRECT.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 44
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 3

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 22:23
vmdce129907 wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
HIMALAYA wrote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.

fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike, Can you kindly explain this question as i am not to understand the options. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame

What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)



Mike, Thanks for the detailed explanation. This question is very tricky and unfortunately I still have doubts..
In this question, we need to counter the argument which mentions the analogy between existence of trade and Yeti Example.
Countering the argument will mean presenting facts which undermines the analogy. Analogy is that absence of written records (Absence of Sighting of Yeti) cannot imply that Trade did not exist (that Yeti does not exist).

Question is how to undermine this analogy. I thought the best answer choice would be one that implies 'The absence of written records indeed means lack of trade', I could not find any option in the answer choices very convincing.

I am completely lost in the analogy, would request you to explain option 'E' and how it counters the analogy in the argument..

Thanks..


The argument in the passage is :
No written record /verifiable sightings don’t imply that no trade/yeti exists.
The option E counter this by saying that written records from early middle ages would have(very likely) included trade information if trade had existed.
_________________

The Kudo please :)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 15 Apr 2013, 09:03
Quote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

This is the argument I focused on in choosing E.

The overall argument in comparing trade to the Yeti is that the lack of evidence cannot be used to prove something did/didn't exist. What you're looking for in the answers is not an argument that is definitive on trade or on the yeti, but one that uses a lack of evidence to support an argument.

(A) shifts evidence from written to archaeological, irrelevant of a lack of evidence
(B) notes a lack of evidence, but doesn't counter any argument
(C) irrelevant
(D) shifts to actual evidence to prove the yeti, this is irrelevant and doesn't counter using a lack of evidence
(E) This is correct. The answer makes an argument that uses a lack of evidence to prove/disprove something. Remember, take the answers as if true. E lays out an argument that uses lack of evidence to prove there wasn't trading between Europe/Asia.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 1946
Followers: 261

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 18 Jun 2014, 12:37
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 61
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 11

Reviews Badge
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia [#permalink] New post 07 Aug 2014, 23:30
Clearly Option E was correct answer choice for this question.

It is the only option that weakens the author's argument in the correct manner.

Thanks!
_________________

'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia   [#permalink] 07 Aug 2014, 23:30
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
MBA in Europe than working in Asia? yjholic 3 07 Dec 2012, 05:18
1 Profile Evaluation Request - Finance in Asia/Europe blackberryaddict 1 26 Oct 2011, 19:01
1 INSEAD - Europe and Asia Campus tan888 4 25 Jan 2010, 22:36
Subject: Business Database Dubai, Middle East and Asia Count akazim7 1 09 Jun 2009, 20:55
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia HIMALAYA 7 07 Jul 2005, 18:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.