Treasure hunter: In general, archaeological artifacts found

I am answering a p.m. from voodoochild

Voodoo:
It seems to me that vishu1414 and getgyan have already done a good job of explaining why it's not C, but since you sent me a p.m., I will explain this. I will only discuss (B) & (C) since those are the answers in contention.
(B) in what sense, if any, an ancient shipwreck can be said to be in peril
(C) whether treasure hunters risk their lives when they retrieve artifacts from ancient shipwrecks

Well, the treasure hunter explicitly states that treasure hunters "risk their lives", so he states that the treasure hunters are at risk. He also explicitly states that the sunken ships are headed to "oblivion", which implies that they are decaying and vanishing, and will take the treasure with them. Thus, he also implies the sunken ships are at risk. So far, from the treasure hunter's side, both claims are stated.
Now, from the archaeologist's side. The archaeologist states, "These shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater. The only danger they are in is from greedy treasure hunters..." In other words, if the treasure hunters simply stayed away, the ship would be fine, not at all in danger. So, without any pesky treasure hunters swimming around it, the sunken ships are at no risk.

The treasure hunter and the archaeologist clearly and explicitly disagree on whether the sunken ships are at risk, whether they are in any peril. That's clear. That's why (B) is correct.
The treasure hunter also clearly feels treasure hunters put themselves at risk. By contrast, the archaeologist says nothing about the relative risk to which the treasure hunters are exposed. Does the archaeologist feel the treasure hunters are at risk? We don't know. Maybe the archaeologist thinks they are not at risk. Maybe the archaeologist thinks they are at risk and because they are doing something criminal, they deserve whatever bad things happens to them in the process. We don't know. The archaeologist's reply characterizes the treasure hunters as "greedy", as "looting", as "in [a] hurry" --- it makes clear that the archaeologist thinks the treasure hunters are causing destruction, posing a threat to the sunken ship, but this reply does not explicitly address in any way the issue of whether the treasure hunters themselves are at risk. That's why (C) is not correct.

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Treasure Hunters - ..attempting to rescue a ship in peril are permitted to keep whatever cargo they can salvage.
Under this rule treasure hunters clearly are entitled to keep the cargo from ancient shipwrecks that they risk their lives to save from oblivion in public waters.
While Archaeologist: Not so. These shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater.
They disagree over "what is scope of Maritime law ?" According to Archaeologist - These shipwrecks have stabilized and can't be defined in scope of peril
Hence -

Why not (C)- whether treasure hunters risk their lives when they retrieve artifacts from ancient shipwrecks ? I think ,its not about scavenging things that are not in peril .They seem to disagree with definition of things - one(Archaeologist) says Law should be same with Artifacts in peril ,other thinks in general.

+1 B



Good Question

Maritime Law is dependent on two things
1) risk their lives
2) ship in peril

For the law to function properly, these two things should be properly defined.

Look at what Archaeologist says
“Not so. These shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater. The only danger they are in is from greedy treasure hunters who destroy archaeological evidence in their hurry to loot salable artifacts.”
The Archaeologist only discussed about the “ship in peril” and not about the “risk their lives” i.e. the risk entailed by the treasure hunter



_________________

thanks Mike for your wonderful explanation. I was confused by "not so." I thought that by saying "not so" the Archaeologist is specifically denying the fact that treasure hunters risk their lives....Thoughts?

The archaeologist's first words simply connote some kind of disagreement. It would be inconsistent (and therefore misleading) only if there were no disagreement at all in what she said. (The GMAT wouldn't do that to us!) To find out what the disagreement is, we need to read the archaeologist's response carefully. It is absolutely invalid to make your own assumptions from the isolated "not so" that go into regions that the archaeologist doesn't explicitly address at all. Yes, the "not so" connotes disagreement, but you don't get to decide what that disagreement is --- you still have to read carefully and precisely.

In fact, I would argue --- those opening words, "not so", are an extremely clever trap set by the test-writer, and unwittingly, you fell into that trap. Agreement or disagreement itself can be expressed in just a word or two, but you have to read carefully to see exactly which aspects of the argument were part of the agreement or disagreement and which were not part of it. You do not get to assume you know what the agreement or disagreement is without reading carefully. That is precisely the mistake the words "not so" tempt test-takers to make.

Does that make sense?

Mike
_________________

Dude you might want to use a spoiler so that not all members of GMAT Club realize that the answer is not C

Thanks!
Cheers
J

How would you feel if I gave you and interesting question and revealed an answer?
Please use spoilers. You just need to press the spoiler button above the text box [spoiler^=^]write anything between these (after removing ^) and it will be hidden[/spoiler]

I got stuck between B and C.
Chose C as I missed an important point that Archaeologist did not speak or say anything about the risk that treasure hunters face in their lives when they retrieve artifacts from ancient shipwrecks.

Dear Mechmeera,
I'm happy to respond. This is a tough question: some other websites suggest that it is, in fact, an LSAT question. I cannot determine whether this is true. The LSAT questions tend to be a notch harder than the GMAT CR, so they make excellent practice.

Yes, on the GMAT CR, it's very important to understand that you should not draw a conclusion from silence or omission. This is tricky, because this is something we often do in everyday life, especially in emotional contexts (e.g. "Have you forgiven me for that incident last week?", "Let's not talk about that!") In logical arguments, such as we see on the GMAT CR, we should not infer anything from silence omission.

The treasure hunter says that the divers risk their lives. The archaeologist responds to other points, but is completely silence about this particular point. We can infer nothing. Maybe he agrees and thinks it's so obvious that it doesn't need acknowledging. Maybe he thinks it's dangerous and that the naughty underwater treasure hunters deserve to get hurt because they are doing something bad. Maybe he thinks diving for treasure is perfectly safe, but he is not particularly interested in arguing about the technical aspects of diving, because he has more important points to make. We simply don't know.

Silence or omission is not a basis for drawing a conclusion.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

General Description: This question asks you to identify an issue over which the treasure hunter and the archaeologist disagree. The task, then, is a matter of determining which of the choices is a claim supported by one speaker but rejected by the other.

A. Incorrect. Whether or not shipwrecks (or anything else, for that matter) count as archaeological artifacts does not arise in the passage.

B. Correct. The treasure hunter presents a rule applying to "a ship in peril" and claims that this rule applies also to the case of treasure hunters taking cargo from ancient shipwrecks. Thus the treasure hunter is saying that ancient shipwrecks count as "ships in peril" in the sense used in "centuries-old maritime law." The archaeologist, on the other hand, disagrees with this claim. By saying "these shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries," the archaeologist shows disagreement with the claim that ancient shipwrecks are "ships in peril." By saying "The only danger they are in is from greedy treasure hunters," the archaeologist suggests a different sense in which ancient shipwrecks may be said to be in peril. Thus the treasure hunter and the archaeologist disagree over "in what sense, if any, an ancient shipwreck can be said to be- in peril."

C. Incorrect. The treasure hunter clearly believes that treasure hunters risk their lives in retrieving such artifacts, as shown by the reference in the last sentence to "cargo from ancient shipwrecks that they [i.e., treasure hunters] risk their lives to save." However, nothing the archaeologist says indicates disagreement with this claim. The archaeologist does make a claim about danger to the shipwrecks, but not about possible dangers to those who would retrieve their cargo. This was by far the most popular incorrect response.

D. Incorrect. The treasure hunter does bring maritime law into the discussion, but the archaeologist does not even address this issue in responding to the treasure hunter.

E. Incorrect. The treasure hunter brings into the discussion the general issue of the ownership of archaeological artifacts found on public property, but nothing the archaeologist says indicates any disagreement with the implication that antique shipwrecks can be said to be on public property.

Tips and Pitfalls: In a "point of disagreement" question, a choice that presents a claim that is supported or denied by one speaker, but about which the other speaker has made no commitment either way, cannot be correct. In other words, for a response to be the correct response, it is not sufficient that the speakers might disagree about it. Limit your analysis to what is actually said; avoid the temptation to speculate about what (else) either speaker might believe.
_________________

Official Explanation [Source: Veritas]

Remember: The correct answer on an Inference question must be true. And the previous question provides an excellent example of that. The treasure hunter and archaeologist may well disagree on many grounds, but we can only answer the question based on what is explicitly in the passage. And the key to that lies with the archeologist’s rebuttal: “The only danger (these shipwrecks) are in is from greedy treasure hunters....” He chooses to rebut the claim that the ships are in any real danger, having already sunk long ago, meaning that he clearly disagrees with the assertion that they are in peril. Answer choice B, then, must be true.

Answer choice D, while it may seem clear as a point of disagreement in this case, is not necessarily true overall. It is simply too broad, as the argument as stated only pertains to ancient shipwrecks that have long since settled. To say that they necessarily disagree whether the law can “ever” apply to “any ship that has already sunk” ignores plenty of possibilities with recently sunk ships or other aspects of the maritime law code. Answer choice D makes the mistake of generalization, but does so by subtly drawing a broad conclusion to an argument in which narrow circumstances are given. Beware the overly broad conclusion in Inference questions.

[My Explanation]
Treasure hunters are saying that the ships are already in danger and thus it is okay for them to “hunt” the ship.
The archaeologists say that ships are fine, and the only danger they are in is from those treasure hunters.

it definitely boils down to B and C , one ppossible explanatioin being that lives of the people trying to save the ship is in danger and that the archaelogists take that public life is also in danger because they are fighting against each other hence this is how i eliminated C and took B.

Hi AndrewN
Unlike most, I was stuck between B and D. I finally chose D because I thought everything that is being discussed or debated is with regards to the maritime law. But I think option D focuses more on the applicability of the law, and that I guess makes it wrong. Is my understanding correct ?

Yes, Namangupta1997, answer choice (D) does focus on the applicability of the law. But note the extreme it goes to: Whether maritime law can ever be applied. There is no debate present in the passage that pertains to all sunken vessels. When the archaeologist says Not so, it is in response to clearly in the argument the treasure hunter puts forth. In other words, the archaeologist does not seem to debate whether maritime law states what the treasure hunter says it does (in sentence two), but whether it clearly entitles treasure hunters to keep the cargo from ancient shipwrecks that they risk their lives to save from oblivion in public waters. The law may not be as straightforward as the treasure hunter makes it out to be. If you saw past answer choice (C), then good for you. That leaves (B) as the safest option.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Thanks AndrewN for a great explanation as always!

On an unrelated note, I have a question. Should I spend time doing the LSAT 1000 series questions ? I know LSAT official questions can be helpful in GMAT preparation (as explained by GMATNinja's post) but I am not sure about the LSAT 1000 series ones. I have also seen that a lot of SC questions that are sourced from the 1000 series are not of the greatest quality. What would you recommend regarding the 1000 series LSAT CR questions ?

Thank you for the kinds words, Namangupta1997. I agree with you that some SC questions from the 1000 Series are of dubious quality. I have noticed that 1000 Series questions that are cross-listed as "official guide" questions, especially those with a specific OG tag, tend to be better for practice. I imagine the same is true of CR questions. Concerning those that may be cross-listed as LSAT questions, you might want to run a quick Google search of the passage. I have discovered many old LSAT questions this way. In general, though, I advise people to steer clear of LSAT Logical Reasoning questions, since many of them utilize a different skillset from their CR counterparts. Even something such as an Assumption question on the LSAT may not be a necessary assumption question, something a GMAT™ student need not worry about. With an expert tutor or teacher such as GMAT Ninja to guide you to certain questions, I see no problem with studying from LSAT material; otherwise, I would stick with the several hundred official CR questions that have been published in various editions of the official guide, and once you have taken a few official mocks, the question pool will grow by several hundred. Considering that you will see no more than eight counted CR questions on the exam, I think several hundred questions will provide adequate training opportunities, regardless of the score you may be targeting.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________