Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 02:53

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 412
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2006, 12:24
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 376
Location: Phoenix AZ
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2006, 12:41
B?

looks like a case of

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1381
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1025
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 330
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1267
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 528
Location: US
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 12:09
B makes sense.

since the evidence for the mixed farming is completely missing.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 402
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 16:10
I like B here... must say this one was tough for me !
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 140
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 19:35
One more for D
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 21:13
i don't know, but i go with E.
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 714
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2006, 06:31
Think it is B.
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1025
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 237
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2006, 04:23
I choose D
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 237
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 123
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2006, 06:31
+1 for B
Current Student
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 139
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2006, 07:05
Whats the OA?
13 Sep 2006, 07:05

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 For large farms to be as productive as they can be 6 30 Sep 2015, 20:02
5 Interested in growing avocados, the owners of a vast produce farm are 3 27 Aug 2015, 02:25
Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of 3 26 Jun 2007, 11:34
1 Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of 8 06 Jun 2007, 04:20
Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of 6 15 May 2007, 04:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by