|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 418
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a [#permalink]
 09 Sep 2006, 13:24
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
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 379
Location: Phoenix AZ
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
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
|
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink]
09 Sep 2006, 15:19
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: 1396
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
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: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
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: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
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: 1278
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
(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: 533
Location: US
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
B makes sense.
since the evidence for the mixed farming is completely missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 410
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
I like B here... must say this one was tough for me !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 142
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
One more for D
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
i don't know, but i go with E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
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: 330
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink]
11 Sep 2006, 05:54
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: 718
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Think it is B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink]
11 Sep 2006, 20:12
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: 330
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR:ancient times [#permalink]
12 Sep 2006, 02:33
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 populationsSumit, 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: 243
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
I choose D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 243
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
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
|
+1 for B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 139
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Whats the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
