Numerous Ancient Mayan cities have been discovered in the Yucatan peninsula in recent decades. The ruins lack any evidence of destruction by invading forces, internal revolts, or disease and appear simply to have been abandoned. Some archaeologists have theorized that the cities were abandoned due to a severe drought known to have occurred in the region between 800 and 1000 AD
Which of the following if true most strongly supports the archaeologists' theory?
A. Ample archaeological evidence of Mayan Peasant revolts and city-state warfare exists, but such events could never result in the permanent abandonment of cities.
B. No monumental inscriptions created after 900 AD have been found in these cities, but inscriptions dating before that time have been found in abundance.
C. studies of Yucatan Lake sediment cores provide conclusive evidence that a prolonged drought occurred in the region from 800 to 1000 AD
D. climatic studies have documented cycles of intermittent drought in the Yucatan peninsula dating from the present to at least 7000 years ago.
E. The Mayan City, Uxmal, was continuously inhabited from 500-1500 AD
I choose C..Although I am incorrect..But I would like to point out that: In a real GMAT question are there 2 or more strengtheners such that one strengthens more than the other..As per what I have read..such is not the case..It is always 1 strengthener..and other neutrals,weakeners or irrelevants
Experts please vouch for the above
I'm happy to respond.
First of all, JusTLucK04
, it is NOT true that GMAT CR strengthener questions often have two strengtheners, one better than the other. That is a relatively rare pattern. I would say they often have one or two weakeners, just as a weakener questions will have one or two strengtheners. Veritas
questions often are very good. Here, I don't like the diction mistake
... the cities were abandoned due to a severe drought
That's a classic diction mistake that would be wrong on the GMAT SC. See:http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom ... nsequence/
Now, to the argument. It is uncertain why they cities are empty --- it is possible that they were abandoned, because other things that would empty a city don't tally with the evidence. The drought is already known. According to the prompt, the occurrence of the drought is already beyond a shadow of a doubt. (B)
gives a new corroborating piece of evidence(C)
tells us something of which we are already sure
An answer that tells us something that we already know adds zilch to the argument. That's why (C)
is wrong. This, of course, is what DexDee
already astutely pointed out above.
Does all this make sense?
Magoosh Test Prep