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

 It is currently 28 Aug 2016, 17:30

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

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1123
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 173

Kudos [?]: 1801 [1] , given: 219

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2013, 07:14
1
KUDOS
1)Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.
+
2)Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities
==> the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

What could be an assumption here? An assumption is something on which the arguments depends on, for example "the mosaics were not created in one place and then transported in all the other cities". This is an assumption that if negated destroys the argument.

That assumption targets the CONCLUSION alone, another type of assumptions is the one that undermines a connection premise/conclusion; example
1)===>conclusion.
An assumption here would be something like "the species were not caught in another region and then transported in the other cities".

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.
The materials are nowhere mentioned in the passage.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
Even if this is negated, the argument still holds true, as this assumption does not target a specific part of the argument.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
Negate C: "some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city", so some motifs are unique=> the conclusion is still valid.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
Negate D: "All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are NOT readily identifiable as representations of known species"; even if they are not are NOT readily identifiable, they could still have been made by traveling artists.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.
This is the assumption needed. If you negate it:
"There was not a common repertory (...)"=> the conclusion is destroyed "the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans".
If there were such repertory, the local artists could have made such mosaics.
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 841
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 1118 [0], given: 197

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2013, 07:28
fozzzy wrote:
Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this question! Thanks.

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish.

Excavation of city S===> several MOSAICs found...and faces of different animals are depicted on these mosaics.

Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.

Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities

identical subject are found in mosaics of other ROMAN cities.

the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

author CONCLUDING: mosaics found in excavation were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire

============================================================================================
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
============================================================================================

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.

conclusion is based on identical faces found and not on types of stone==>out of context
=============================================================================================
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.

we are not worried whether all species which are depicted are found in single region or not....==>out of context

=============================================================================================
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

even if few motifs which appear in the Sepphoris mosaics..appear in mosaics of some other Roman city.==>still this doesnt affect the conclusion as rest of the mosaics are more likely to be made by travelling artisans==>conclusion still valid
==============================================================================================
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

conclusion doesnt depends on whether depicted animals are readily identified or not.
==============================================================================================
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

now negate this:There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.==>clearly destroys the conclusion...by stating that similarity was possible in different parts of ROMAN city.==>hence this is the assumption.
=============================================================================================
hope it helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 3

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Sep 2013, 07:54
I had it down to B and E.

If you negate E, it all falls into place.
Intern
Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 6
GMAT Date: 08-15-2013
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 19

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Sep 2013, 06:33
I was completely confused just observing the complex language used - mosaics,motifs,sepphoris.
As i was not able to prethink any answers,so i directly went to the options.
Conclusion is : the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman empire

I was only able to eliminate option D on first look as the passage mentioned about several and not all identifiable animal species.
I tried the negation test and eliminated choice A : even if mosaics are composed of stones found in Sepphoris area, they could still be built by
travelling artisans. B too : even if belonged to single native region then can be created by travelling artisans.
I was confused between C and E and chose C(didnt apply any reason though). E is the correct answer
Could you please explain via E GMAT 3 step process how to resolve this question.
Also, it took me around 3 minutes with this question as i had to first understand the complex argument and then try negation test.
Is there any other choices other than A that can be eliminated before applying the negation test to save time.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1984
Followers: 1946

Kudos [?]: 6440 [4] , given: 260

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Oct 2013, 19:57
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
shlbatra wrote:
I was completely confused just observing the complex language used - mosaics,motifs,sepphoris.

If you are confused with complex words, then use variables in place of these. Instead of thinking Sepphoris every time it appears, think City X.

shlbatra wrote:
As i was not able to prethink any answers,so i directly went to the options.

If you are not able to prethink, it means you have not understood the passage well. Spend some more time with the passage. The mistake that most people make while doing practice is that they practice as if they are in an exam hall. You should stimulate exam hall environment when you are giving Mocks, not when you are learning concepts or just practicing. So, you should have spent more time in understanding the passage. Also, it is a virtuous circle - once you spend time to understand complex arguments, the next time you encounter a similar complex argument, you'll take lesser time.

shlbatra wrote:
Conclusion is : the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman empire

I was only able to eliminate option D on first look as the passage mentioned about several and not all identifiable animal species.
I tried the negation test and eliminated choice A : even if mosaics are composed of stones found in Sepphoris area, they could still be built by
travelling artisans. B too : even if belonged to single native region then can be created by travelling artisans.
I was confused between C and E and chose C(didnt apply any reason though). E is the correct answer
Could you please explain via E GMAT 3 step process how to resolve this question.
Also, it took me around 3 minutes with this question as i had to first understand the complex argument and then try negation test.
Is there any other choices other than A that can be eliminated before applying the negation test to save time.

Here's my analysis of the argument. I think it's difficult to eliminate any other choice except D without using negation test because none of the other choices are so glaringly out of context.

Understanding the passage

This also means simplifying the passage.

Original passage:

1. Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish
2. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
3. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however
4. the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire

Simplified Passage:

1. Excavation of City X have uncovered mosaics of some animal species
2. Most of those animal species did not live in X when these mosaics were created
3. Identical mosaics appear in other Roman cities (Remember X is also a Roman city)
4. Conclusion: the mosaics were created by artisans who came from other Roman cities (where these animals could have been present during the time when these mosaics were created)

Can you understand the logical flow of the argument? Why does the author think that the mosaics were created by artisans from other Roman cities and not by artisans of City X? The reason is that the animals whose mosaics were found in X did not exist in City X when these mosaics were created. So, if the animals were not there, how could have artisans of City X created mosaics of such animals? Right?

Therefore, the author concludes that these mosaics were created by artisans from other Roman cities.

Prethinking

What is the conclusion?
The mosaics were very likely created by artisans from some other part of Roman empire

What is the most basic assumption?
The assumption is that the mosaics were not likely created by artisans of City X.

Right?

Now, we can get to more specific assumptions by thinking of scenarios in which artisans of City X could have developed these mosaics. The assumption would be all these scenarios do not exist. Right?

If these scenarios exist (i.e. aritsans of City X artisans could have created mosaics), then the conclusion breaks down. Therefore, the assumption will be that none of these scenarios exist.

We need not think of any specific scenario. Pre-thinking till this part is perfectly fine.

Analysis of option statements

A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area. – It is talking about composition of mosaics. Even if these mosaics were exclusively built from Sepphoris stones, they could have been built by travelling artisans. So, even if this statement is negated, the conclusion does not break down. So, this is incorrect.

b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. – Again, use negation. If there is a single region, say City Y, to which all the species in the mosaics are native, can’t these mosaics be built by travelling artisans? Even if that were so, these mosaics could still have been built by travelling artisans, possibly from City Y. So, again, conclusion does not shatter.

c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. – Given the option statements use very relevant terms here, I would again use negation to test whether this can be the correct choice or not.
The negation is:
There are some motifs that appear in the Sepphoris mosaics but that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

This means that some motifs are exclusively there in Sepphoris city. But can’t traveling artisans built these motifs or mosaics only in Sepphoris? Yes, they could have. Traveling artisans could have built such motifs only in Sepphoris. In this case too, the conclusion does not break down.

d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
Now, this is applicable for both traveling and local artisans. So, option D does not affect the conclusion (that these mosaics were created by traveling artisans) or our basic assumption (that these mosaics were not built by local artisans)

e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. – Negate this.

The negation of this statement is:
There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar

If there was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans of Sepphoris were familiar, then mosaics could have been created by artisans of Sepphoris even though such animals were not present at that time. The local artisans could have just taken inspiration from the common repertory.
So, when this option statement is negated, we have a scenario in which local artisans may have created the mosaics. In this case, we cannot say that mosaics were very likely created by traveling artisans.
So, the conclusion breaks down. Therefore, option E is the correct choice.

Does it help?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9276
Followers: 805

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Oct 2014, 06:46
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9276
Followers: 805

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Oct 2015, 21:28
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.
Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 23

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2015, 23:04
hoogie wrote:
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Hey guys, what do you think the answer would be?
anyone who has an idea please share thoughts with full explanation.

Thanks.

This is a tricky one. Took me almost 3:10 mins to solve.

Problem here is the wordiness of the options which confuses people.

There are many mosaic designs found in S --> Oddly, the species drawn dont belong to the region of S ---> So, traveling artisans must have made them (Conclusion).

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area. Well, here we are not worried about the types of stones, and what these stones are composed of. So, A is out
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.If this options seems confusing, Negate it. There IS a single region to which the species depicted in the S region are native. If so, then one must NOT automatically pick the conclusion and say, Oh it is strengthened. No its not. This particular region can also be S itself! So this option can go two ways: 1. It can be a region which isn't S. 2. It could be S itself as well. Tricky but its good to forgo B
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.SOME motifs appear in the S mosiacs that do not appear in the mosaics of other region. We are not comparing regions. Comparing doesn't tell us anything about who made them. And even if you want to think about it. Again, it can go two ways: It could have been created by people of S and THEY traveled to other parts, spreading their art. Or People of other roman cities traveled and got it to S. So forgo C.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.The species are identifiable. Amazing. but is it helping us identify WHO made them? No. Forgo D.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.Negate it. There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in.....familiar. Okay I particularly did not understand the meaning or "repertory" but thats okay. I assumed it was some sort of synonym of "collection" and moved on. So if there WAS a common collection - then everyone is Rome could have made them! (Weakening the conclusion 100%) And if there wasn't such a common know-all collection, then someone traveling must have made them! (strengthening the conclusion 100%) Seems to be the best option among st all. Pick this.

Hope this clears some doubts. If there are flaws in my reasoning, please let me know. I'd love to correct them.

Thank u
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Concentration: Marketing, Statistics
Schools: Stern '16 (S)
GMAT Date: 10-11-2014
Followers: 0

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

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Nov 2015, 01:06
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Argument Analysis

Premise
Mosaic containing animal pics found in City S but oddly these animals did not live there when the mosaics were created
Identical motifs in mosaic in other cities in Roman empire

Conclusion
Mosai created by travelling artisans from other part of empire because 2nd premise (p)

Notice:
Since is used before however …. Classical case where GMAT presents the premise supporting the conclusion before the conclusion itself
Question Analysis
Straight forward assumption question

Prethinking
An event has occurred and a possible reason is provided for that occurrence. Other artisans travelling are the reason why the mosaics appear in city S. No other reason is possible for this occurrence.

A) The conclusion is based on similarity of design found in other cities and nothing to do with stones found in city S…. WRONG
B) ‘most’ species never lived in city S. and several identifiable species. The answer is an inference that can be drawn but cannot be an assumption. …. WRONG
Remember: Assumption should bring in new information that connects the dots and should not be a paraphrase of an existing premise…. WRONG
C) Contradiction to what has been stated in the argument already. Motifs designs are similar as stated in passage .... WRONG
D) Contrary to what has been said in the argument. Not all are identifiable. …… WRONG
E) Try to negate this. If there was a common knowledge across artists in Roman Empire then it was likely that the reason for design repetition was the ‘common knowledge’ and not travelling artisans. CORRECT ANSWER
Manager
Status: You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 68
Location: India
saurav: suman
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 138

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 May 2016, 02:18
[quote="hoogie"]Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Hey guys, what do you think the answer would be?

A is out of scope
B seems plausible negate it no effect on conclusion
C not relevant
D not relevant
e correct, negate it it will shatter the conclusion
_________________

You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come.

Intern
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 168

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 May 2016, 03:14
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Conclusion : The mosaics were likely to be created by travelling artisans.
Let's negate options and see which option would make the conclusion to fall apart.

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area. --> Okay so after negating it says that stones are exclusive of Sepphoris area only. It might have been that travelling artisans used their skills and Sepphoris stones to create the mosaics. So in short, it doesn't affect the conclusion.
b. There is nosingle region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. --> Species of the animals are irrelevant to the conclusion, as the conclusion is all about travelling artisans likely created the mosaics.
c. Nomotifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. --> This option talks about motif(the designs) but our conclusion is all about traveling artisans likely created the mosaics.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are not readily identifiable as representations of known species. --> discussion of species here is irrelevant to the conclusion. So in no way it affects the conclusion.
e. There was nota common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. --> If at all there were common repertory of designs then this options breaks down the conclusion that travelling artisans likely created the mosaics. Hence this is the answer.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 259
Location: South Africa
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 22

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jun 2016, 23:16
hoogie wrote:
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Hey guys, what do you think the answer would be?
anyone who has an idea please share thoughts with full explanation.

Thanks.

Premise : Mosaic designs contains depictions of species not found in S.
Premise 2 : Similar mosaic designs found in other part of Roman empire. [This raises a flag for me. Not specific part, but other parts... could there be a common learning ground?]

Conclusion : Built by travelling artisans

Assumption : There is no way that local artists could have learnt the design. Maybe from one of the artists ?

E states it perfectly
_________________

Kudos if I helped

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered   [#permalink] 06 Jun 2016, 23:16

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered num 3 01 Aug 2015, 03:29
29 Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered 8 09 Aug 2012, 03:34
2 Excavations of the Roman city of 9 20 Aug 2010, 02:11
23 Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of 67 14 Jun 2009, 20:23
1 Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of 4 25 Jul 2008, 10:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by