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

It is currently 02 Sep 2015, 19:16
GMAT Club Tests

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

In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 920
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 322

Premium Member
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 20 Jan 2013, 21:33
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:54) correct 56% (01:48) wrong based on 279 sessions
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesGMAT Pill GMAT Discount Codes
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2654
Followers: 512

Kudos [?]: 3963 [0], given: 727

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights [#permalink] New post 21 Jan 2013, 07:31
Expert's post
The argument states

Nobles hired knights to invade new lands. Now: knights trained regardless the land to invade or defend, no matter what.

they trained and then..........who cares. did something imparted to them (no regards of the location where they fought) . basically the argument says this.

But in my opinion E weaken the argument. A is an assumption.

If you find it, post the OE and will see :)

regards
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition 6. The best reading to improve Reading Comprehension 7.Verbal question bank and Directories

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.49
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 45

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 02 Oct 2013, 04:42
The conclusion of the stimulus says that "Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.:
The option A says that only the nobles had the information regarding whether they are going to attack or defend. As the Knights had no idea, they can't decide which techniques need to be practiced. There is no way we can know that the knights regarded the location as insignificant if A is true. Hence, A seriously weakens the conclusion.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Posts: 86
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 16

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 07 Oct 2013, 11:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
The conclusion basically is, knights were hired by nobles to prepare for an impending battle. If the conclusion is to be attacked or weakened, all that needs to be done is, prove that the knights will be unable to prepare for the battle or take relevant decisions likewise.

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
If the knights have no clue/knowledge of the land or other such details, then they actually fail to take battle related decisions. Hence, its not point having knights around. Therefore, A.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Doesn't address the conclusion at all. Wrong
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
The decision taking capabilities of the knights are at question, not their warrior/fighting skills. Although it does weaken a premise, but the conclusion needs to be attacked, not the premise.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
The knights's decisions matter, not the nobles'.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
This actually supports the argument in a way because, no matter what, the knights are still successful in taking decisions. We need to weaken by confirming that knights are unable in taking decisions.


PLease do correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 44
Location: United States
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 54

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2015, 17:02
This one's from Veritas and here's the official explanation. Can someone please explain why A is correct. I still don't see how A is weakening the conclusion.

Choice A, the correct answer, provides evidence that knights could not determine in advance whether a battle would involve an invasion of land or a defense of land. Thus, even if knights did regard the location of land as relevant to success, they might have been unable to apply this criterion. Therefore, choice A weakens the conclusion. Choice B fails to establish that the location of the battle was important, that knights had any reason to see the location as relevant, or that they lacked information to properly determine the relevance of the location. Neither choice C nor choice D affects the conclusion-choice C does not give enough information to undermine the conclusion, and choice D is irrelevant to the knights' view. That another factor was seen by knights as relevant to success is irrelevant to the conclusion, thus choice E is incorrect.

My take:
Logical structure:
Premise 1: Nobles led Knights to either defend or invade..
Premise 2: Knights trained for success using strategies that were not dependent on offensive or defensive position.
Conclusion: Knights didn't regard location as relevant to success

Now if A is correct, it is probably trying to weaken/break the assumption that links Premise 1 to Conclusion. However, premise 1 - doesn't state that knights had to know the type of battle - whether they would be invading or defending - in order for conclusion to hold true - knights didn't regard location as relevant to success. Even if knights have no knowledge of type of battle (invasion/defense) they can still regard location (offensive/defensive position) as irrelevant. ??

Please can some experts help clarify. Thanks.

TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 44
Location: United States
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 54

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2015, 17:03
This one's from Veritas and here's the official explanation. Can someone please explain why A is correct. I still don't see how A is weakening the conclusion.

Choice A, the correct answer, provides evidence that knights could not determine in advance whether a battle would involve an invasion of land or a defense of land. Thus, even if knights did regard the location of land as relevant to success, they might have been unable to apply this criterion. Therefore, choice A weakens the conclusion. Choice B fails to establish that the location of the battle was important, that knights had any reason to see the location as relevant, or that they lacked information to properly determine the relevance of the location. Neither choice C nor choice D affects the conclusion-choice C does not give enough information to undermine the conclusion, and choice D is irrelevant to the knights' view. That another factor was seen by knights as relevant to success is irrelevant to the conclusion, thus choice E is incorrect.

My take:
Logical structure:
Premise 1: Nobles led Knights to either defend or invade..
Premise 2: Knights trained for success using strategies that were not dependent on offensive or defensive position.
Conclusion: Knights didn't regard location as relevant to success

Now if A is correct, it is probably trying to weaken/break the assumption that links Premise 1 to Conclusion. However, premise 1 - doesn't state that knights had to know the type of battle - whether they would be invading or defending - in order for conclusion to hold true - knights didn't regard location as relevant to success. Even if knights have no knowledge of type of battle (invasion/defense) they can still regard location (offensive/defensive position) as irrelevant. ??

Please can some experts help clarify. Thanks.

TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5867
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1483

Kudos [?]: 7989 [1] , given: 190

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2015, 22:46
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself


Argument:
Nobles hired knights for battle.
Nobles led knights either in invading or defending.
Knights planned strategies which did not depend on offensive or defensive position.

Conclusion: Knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position so we are concluding that the knights did not consider location important. The point is that we cannot conclude that. Perhaps they did not know the location and hence did not consider it. Perhaps they did think that location was important to strategy but since they did not know the location, they couldn't plan their strategy based on that.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the position and hence it makes sense that they did not consider it in their strategy. So it is not necessary that they did not consider position important. So it weakens our conclusion.

Answer (A)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2014
Posts: 120
Location: Hong Kong
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 54 [1] , given: 33

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2015, 23:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself



Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success. , BECAUSE In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position.

Answer Choice A weakens this conclusion because it states that knights did not even know if they would be fighting offensive or defensive!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 44
Location: United States
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 54

Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink] New post 13 Feb 2015, 07:46
Thank you, Karishma. Much appreciated. Please can you validate my interpretation below. It is a cause-effect relationship, right?

"The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position (invading/defending) => so we are concluding that => the knights did not consider location important."

Since X So Y (Cause and effect relation?)

But in A we are showing that there's an alternate reason to the Effect, and hence we cast doubt/break the cause-effect relationship.

Now we are implying that:
Since Z so Y.
Here Z is "knights had no knowledge if they will be invading or defending.



VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself


Argument:
Nobles hired knights for battle.
Nobles led knights either in invading or defending.
Knights planned strategies which did not depend on offensive or defensive position.

Conclusion: Knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position so we are concluding that the knights did not consider location important. The point is that we cannot conclude that. Perhaps they did not know the location and hence did not consider it. Perhaps they did think that location was important to strategy but since they did not know the location, they couldn't plan their strategy based on that.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the position and hence it makes sense that they did not consider it in their strategy. So it is not necessary that they did not consider position important. So it weakens our conclusion.

Answer (A)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to   [#permalink] 13 Feb 2015, 07:46
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
PRomotion and Hiring iyersu 4 18 Dec 2013, 07:46
The interview is an essential part of a successful hiring PUNEETSCHDV 0 20 Aug 2012, 21:46
Forbidding companies from hiring permanent dreambeliever 6 14 Nov 2011, 06:03
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic The interview is an essential part of a successful hiring PTK 20 09 May 2011, 11:09
19 Experts publish their posts in the topic For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the rohitgoel15 14 21 Jul 2010, 04:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to

  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®.