Excavations on the now uninhabited isle of Kelton

Hi

First of all: avoid to confuse you by a gmat question and try to understand the situation at end; trying to identify the premise and conclusion

What we know:

1) towns decimated by volcanic ashes

2) the conseguences is due to a volcanic activity that destroyed all in 160 BC

Now, here the question:

A) coins minted before 160 and no after.....this could explain and at the same time reinforce the archaelogists hyphotesis that the destruction accoured in 160 BC (is what we looking for eventually)

B) piece of gold were found before and after 160 (is all destroyed by volcano how we could have something produced after 160 by human being ?? )

C) This not explain us WHY the destruction and people decimated by volcanoes: isneutral like answer and it doesn't neither to affect our conclusion nor our argument at all. This option tells nothing about, the eruptions were near the island but nothing more: they could have affected the entire situation but even at all.

D) and E) similar in reasoning to B

The answer must be A
_________________

Hi Ankit546

I'd imagine that you're trying to differentiate between a) and c), as the other 3 weaken the argument. I agree with carcass above, and he / she uses the same logic that I did.

When I see two possible answers for strengthen questions, I look at a couple of other elements:

1) How tightly is the answer bound to strengthen the argument? In c) above the wording suggests that it strengthens the argument by talking about eruptions in the correct timeframe. But it is not bound to strengthen the argument; it could be that the eruptions where not related to any events on the island so in that sense it adds nothing (particularly if you consider that there are already signs of volcanic activity in the region). In a) the final scenario (i.e. argument + answer) gives evidence of volcanic activity and a very precise time, both in the correct region.

2) What are the elements of the conclusion that needs proving / strengthening? The conclusion is that a village was destroyed by a volcano in 160BC. The argument supplies evidence for the destruction of the village by volcanic ash but gives nothing for the time (160BC) of the eruption, or its location. Answer c) talks about volcanic activity which is attractive but not necessary, the time (which is necessary) but not the location. Answer a) gives the time and the location. It doesn't give the method of destruction, but this is ok because the argument already contains this evidence.

Hope that helps

B.

Hi Ankit546

I'd imagine that you're trying to differentiate between a) and c), as the other 3 weaken the argument. I agree with carcass above, and he / she uses the same logic that I did.

When I see two possible answers for strengthen questions, I look at a couple of other elements:

1) How tightly is the answer bound to strengthen the argument? In c) above the wording suggests that it strengthens the argument by talking about eruptions in the correct timeframe. But it is not bound to strengthen the argument; it could be that the eruptions where not related to any events on the island so in that sense it adds nothing (particularly if you consider that there are already signs of volcanic activity in the region). In a) the final scenario (i.e. argument + answer) gives evidence of volcanic activity and a very precise time, both in the correct region.

2) What are the elements of the conclusion that needs proving / strengthening? The conclusion is that a village was destroyed by a volcano in 160BC. The argument supplies evidence for the destruction of the village by volcanic ash but gives nothing for the time (160BC) of the eruption, or its location. Answer c) talks about volcanic activity which is attractive but not necessary, the time (which is necessary) but not the location. Answer a) gives the time and the location. It doesn't give the method of destruction, but this is ok because the argument already contains this evidence.

Hope that helps

B.

Ya, when i was trying to solve this problem, I thought that premise is mainly about a time frame and volcanic activity. So, I thought "C" might just win it. But a great explanation provided by both you and carcass.

The explanation definitely helped

Cheers,

Ankit

The question asks to find an answer that most strongly supports the archarologist' hypothesis so our attempt must be to prove that the conclusion of the sentence is correct/ state some additional premises in support of the conclusion.

(A) No coins minted after 160 B.C. were found in Kelton , but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.

Supports the conclusion that no human activity was noticed in the island after 160 B.C.

(B) Pieces of gold and pearl jewelery that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following 160 B.C. were also found in several graves on the island.

If jewelry was found in the region following 160 B.C. suggests human being were there in the island after 16 BC and the volcano had no effect.

(C) Most modern histories of the region mention that several major volcanoe erruptions occurred near the island in 160 B.C.

Volcano eruption near the island may not have any direct impact on the island.

(D) Several small jugs carved in styles poplular in the region in the certury between 200 B.C. and 100 B.C. were found in Kelton.

200 - 100 BC can include - 200 BC to 160 BC & 200 BC to 100 BC.

In absence of specific data we would not be in a position to comment.

(E) Drawings of the styles that was definitely used in the region after 160 B.C. were found in Kelton.

Nothing can be specifically said about this option.


Hence IMHO (A)
_________________

Abhishek009 I agree with your explanation for Option A but I do not understand why option C is wrong. The argument says that "the destruction was due to volcanic activity known to have occurred in the vicinity of the island in 160 B. C." This implies that there was a volcanic eruption nearby and options C validates that.

Where am I going wrong?

hi,
the argument is about destruction from volcanic activity..
C just confirms the possiblity of volcanic activity during that period but does not help in hypothesizing that the town was decimated in one of those volcanic activities during that period..

_________________

C doesn't explain that there was damage happened in 160 bc. it only shows that volcano erupted . People could have still been saved as per option C

in option A, it strongly mentions that no life were present after 160 BC. The passage already mentions that volcano happened and now we need to validate whether life survived thereafter or not. option A fits more suitably in the gap:)