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

It is currently 30 Aug 2014, 08:26

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

Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 415
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a [#permalink] New post 09 Sep 2006, 12:24
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a single type of crop or livestock) existed only where there were large commercial markets for farm products, and such markets presuppose urban populations. Therefore the extensive ruins in the archaeological site at Kadishim are probably the remains of a largely uninhabited ceremonial structure rather than of a densely populated city, since the land in the region of Kadshim could never have supported any farms except mixed farms, which grow a variety of crops and livestock.
Which one of the following is an error of reasoning in the argument?
(A) taking the fact that something is true of one sample of a class of things as evidence that the same is true of the entire class of things
(B) taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist
(C) interpreting an ambiguous claim in one way in one part of the argument and in another way in another part of the argument
(D) supposing that because two things usually occur in conjunction with one another, one of them must be the cause of the other
(E) drawing a conclusion that is simply a restatement of one of the premises on which the argument is based
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 381
Location: Phoenix AZ
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 09 Sep 2006, 12:41
B?

looks like a case of

X => Y and hence X' => Y'
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink] New post 09 Sep 2006, 14:19
D sounds logical.



Just because specialized farms => large commercial markets, doesn't necessarily mean specialized farms are the cause of large commercial markets and vice versa.
_________________

gmat - plan to take in oct 2007 ( expected score - 690 - 730 )
goal - career switch to investment banking
experience - 9 years , software dev, team lead, project management, hiring.

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1390
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 09 Sep 2006, 15:47
B looks like it


Taking what is found at the site as the only evidence and trying to conclude on a premise that something is not existing as the primary evidence is questionable.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 09 Sep 2006, 23:50
I would go with B.

Specialized farms need urban populations. But urban populations do not necessarily need specilzed farms.

hence "taking the nonexistence of something (read specialized farms) as evidence that a necessary precondition (read urban populations) for that thing also did not exist
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 06:16
Going for (B) too .Had to check the meaning of the wrod presuppose
_________________

A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1270
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 09:07
(D) supposing that because two things usually occur in conjunction with one another, one of them must be the cause of the other

B and D are closest to explain

Given:
SpecializedFarms ->Large Mkts
Large Mkts -> Urban Population

Conclusion:
No Specialized Farms therefore no urban population.

D fits the cause and affect implication.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 532
Location: US
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 12:09
B makes sense.

since the evidence for the mixed farming is completely missing.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 405
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 16:10
I like B here... must say this one was tough for me !
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 142
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 19:35
One more for D
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 21:13
i don't know, but i go with E.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 11 Sep 2006, 03:11
ak_idc wrote:
I would go with B.

Specialized farms need urban populations. But urban populations do not necessarily need specilzed farms.

hence "taking the nonexistence of something (read specialized farms) as evidence that a necessary precondition (read urban populations) for that thing also did not exist


B it is.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink] New post 11 Sep 2006, 04:54
It's between B and D.. I pick D for the following reason...
(B) taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist

This says that the Non existence of specialized farms --> pre-condition does not exist...but the passage does not say that dense population is a pre-condition, rather it says that it is follows from a presence of specialized farms...

(D) supposing that because two things usually occur in conjunction with one another, one of them must be the cause of the other

D actually hits the spot by saying two things that could have happened simultaneously are being linked as cause-effect by the passage...
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 716
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 11 Sep 2006, 06:31
Think it is B.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink] New post 11 Sep 2006, 19:12
sumitsarkar82 wrote:
It's between B and D.. I pick D for the following reason...
(B) taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist

This says that the Non existence of specialized farms --> pre-condition does not exist...but the passage does not say that dense population is a pre-condition, rather it says that it is follows from a presence of specialized farms...

(D) supposing that because two things usually occur in conjunction with one another, one of them must be the cause of the other

D actually hits the spot by saying two things that could have happened simultaneously are being linked as cause-effect by the passage...


Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a single type of crop or livestock) existed only where there were large commercial markets for farm products, and such markets presuppose urban populations

Sumit, are n't the highlighted words suggesting that urban populations are a pre-condition?
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2006, 01:33
ak_idc wrote:
sumitsarkar82 wrote:
It's between B and D.. I pick D for the following reason...
(B) taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist

This says that the Non existence of specialized farms --> pre-condition does not exist...but the passage does not say that dense population is a pre-condition, rather it says that it is follows from a presence of specialized farms...

(D) supposing that because two things usually occur in conjunction with one another, one of them must be the cause of the other

D actually hits the spot by saying two things that could have happened simultaneously are being linked as cause-effect by the passage...


Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a single type of crop or livestock) existed only where there were large commercial markets for farm products, and such markets presuppose urban populations

Sumit, are n't the highlighted words suggesting that urban populations are a pre-condition?


My bad... You seem to be right...
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 242
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2006, 04:23
I choose D
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 242
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2006, 04:43
presuppose- assume the prior existence of

I change my answer to B. Yes, you have to look up presuppose even if the term sounds familiar. The text already states that the existence of market 'presupposes' urban population.
Hence, both conditions really do come together!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 123
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2006, 06:31
+1 for B
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 139
Followers: 2

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

 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2006, 07:05
Whats the OA?
  [#permalink] 13 Sep 2006, 07:05
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic A farm has chickens, cows and sheep. There are three times manalq8 6 12 Jan 2012, 07:00
As envisioned by researchers, commercial farming of lobsters gmacvik 5 07 Sep 2005, 11:51
Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of ywilfred 4 02 Sep 2005, 07:26
farm equipment vprabhala 4 19 Jan 2005, 18:45
As envisioned by researchers, commercial farming of lobsters saurya_s 3 03 Nov 2004, 06:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 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®.