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

It is currently 16 Apr 2014, 23:24

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

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1125
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 92

Kudos [?]: 998 [1] , given: 219

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2013, 06:14
1
This post received
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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 836
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 670 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 620 Q49 V26
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 35

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 196

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2013, 06:28
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.

most of the identified animal were not found in city S when these mosaics were made.


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...



GMAT RCs VOCABULARY LIST: vocabulary-list-for-gmat-reading-comprehension-155228.html
learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... assessment
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APt9ITygGss

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

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink] New post 16 Sep 2013, 06:54
I had it down to B and E.

If you negate E, it all falls into place.
Intern
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] New post 30 Sep 2013, 05:33
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.
2 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1577
Followers: 1060

Kudos [?]: 2527 [2] , given: 164

GMAT Tests User
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered [#permalink] New post 02 Oct 2013, 18:57
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session: September 14: Learn how to define your GMAT strategy, create your study plan and master the core skills to excel on the GMAT. Click here to attend.
ImageImageImageImage

Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered   [#permalink] 02 Oct 2013, 18:57
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as misterJJ2u 1 03 Jul 2007, 09:02
Popular new posts 6 Experts publish their posts in the topic Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as quiet888 14 04 May 2008, 17:27
New posts Archeological excavations of Roman ruins on the Greek island vivektripathi 6 20 Dec 2008, 23:45
New posts 2 Excavations of the Roman city of jananijayakumar 9 20 Aug 2010, 01:11
New posts 9 Experts publish their posts in the topic Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered naruphanp 6 09 Aug 2012, 02:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 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®.