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

It is currently 21 Sep 2014, 12:40

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

Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 670 [0], given: 781

Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2003, 10:13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (01:51) correct 67% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions
Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the fact that a law setting tariffs on timber imports from Poran was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty does suggest that during that period a timber trade was co9nducted.

Critic: Your reasoning is flawed. During its third dynasty, Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran, but certainly on today's statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage.

21. The critic's response to the historian's reasoning does which one of the following?

(A) It implies an analogy between the present and the past.

(B) It identifies a general principle that the historian's reasoning violates.

(C) It distinguishes between what has been established as a certainty and what has been established as a possibility.

(D) It establishes explicit criteria that must be used in evaluating indirect evidence.

(E) It points out the dissimilar roles that law plays in societies that are distinct from one another.

22. The criticтАЩs response to the historian is flawed because it

(A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty

(B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade

(C) fails to recognize that the historian's conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct evidence

(D) takes no account of the difference between a law's enactment at a particular time and a law's existence as part of a legal code at a particular time

(E) accepts without question that assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2003, 02:32
Q 21: I am between choices A) and D)
Q 22: I'd choose D)
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 670 [0], given: 781

 [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2003, 10:31
Quote:
Q 21: I am between choices A and D


A is correct. Please Explain

Quote:
Q 22: I'd choose D


D is correct..Please Explain.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2003, 10:56
In 21 the answer easily narrows down to A and D. Analogy proves to be a safer deduction from the given info.
22: In his argument Historian refers to enactment, but Critic refers to existing laws. Here comes the inconcistency in his argument.
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 670 [0], given: 781

 [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2003, 11:37
vaka wrote:
In 21 the answer easily narrows down to A and D. Analogy proves to be a safer deduction from the given info.
22: In his argument Historian refers to enactment, but Critic refers to existing laws. Here comes the inconcistency in his argument.


for 21 ,could you please elaborate. Also whats the problem with C.

for 22 ,again for this, i am trying to find out why is C not correct.

thanks
Praetorian
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 30 Sep 2003, 00:01
Hey, Praetorian,
I don't see any ground for C to be correct. If I follow the pattern, suggested in C and assume that certainty is a Law established, but a possibility is trade activity, which may be already dead, than I must be given a reason why that possibility may occur. The reference on similar case which may have taken place in past or which may be observed in present might be a proof. That is the case in our situtaion. Then you have nothing to do but conclude that this is analogy that does this job.
23: imo C could be correct. But look. The premises contain both notions <law enactment> and <existing laws>. Critic uses 2 different Subjects in his reasoning, which is incorrect. Law enactment refers to Poran and Nayal, whereas Critic in his reasoning refers to existing laws. Obviously enactmant implies existence of trade activity. Existing laws may allow both cases: trade activity still exists and trade activity has been waning or just stopped. This gap between two opposite references is a flaw.

Does that make sense to you?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2011
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

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

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was [#permalink] New post 28 Dec 2011, 18:35
Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the fact that a law setting tariffs on timber imports from Poran was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty does suggest that during that period a timber trade was co9nducted.

Critic: Your reasoning is flawed. During its third dynasty, Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran, but certainly on today's statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage.

21. The critic's response to the historian's reasoning does which one of the following?

(A) It implies an analogy between the present and the past.

(B) It identifies a general principle that the historian's reasoning violates.

(C) It distinguishes between what has been established as a certainty and what has been established as a possibility.

(D) It establishes explicit criteria that must be used in evaluating indirect evidence.

(E) It points out the dissimilar roles that law plays in societies that are distinct from one another.


Why isn't the answer B.
The historian statement means that the existence of a law implies that there must have been a trade activity that used to happen between Poran and Nayal. But the critic contradicts the historian by stating that existence of laws regulating activities, doesn't mean that people are actually engaged in them.
Re: Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was   [#permalink] 28 Dec 2011, 18:35
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic Maine will face a serious shortage of timber by the year dontbelievethetruth 7 24 Sep 2011, 12:34
timber wolf Ravshonbek 1 03 Sep 2007, 13:55
Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was prude_sb 6 02 Dec 2006, 21:27
SC: Evidence rchadha 5 29 Sep 2005, 08:55
Questions 21-22 Historian: There is no direct evidence that WinWinMBA 4 25 May 2005, 08:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.