In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

I got this incredibly hard question in my last Veritas CAT. What I don't understand in the OA is the link between "invading or defending land" and the "location of battle" in the conclusion. By choosing letter A I have to assume that invading or defending a land has something to do with the location of the battle. Can someone provide an official gmat question that uses this kind of construction?

I think E strengthen the concl.

But there is a connection between invading/defending and location by definition. When you invade, you go to other regions to invade. When you defend, you defend home. Say, your homeland is surrounded by mountains, your strategy might depend on that. If you are going to invade a city along a river, your strategy might be different. So location has everything to do with whether one is defending or invading.
Once you understand the question, it doesn't seem hard at all. Check out my post above for an explanation: in-the-feudal-system-nobles-typically-hired-knights-to-146114.html#p1484098

it is a clear that A is the answer. Knights need not know what nobles are planning to do. They are paid to fight. Where they fight - doesn't matter.

IMO answer is A.

I could not reach the answer on first look. I had to use POE to determine the answer.

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land. First thought - Since even without knowledge the knights are preparing for success, this knowledge might have no relevance to knight.

Second read- If they did not have the knowledge- then I cannot say that they did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success. The actual reason for them not using the knowledge of the position was not the relevance of the knowledge but lack of knowledge. They might use this knowledge in there advantage if they knew about the position.


b)In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.- this states that the knights new about the location/position of the after the battle was over, not relevant.

c)Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles. There success rate has no relevance- had it been that without the knowledge of position the knights are only as successful as nobles are - then this would have been the ans.

d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.- Nobles decision making has no relevance.

e)Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment. - Strengthen the conlusion. If knight's strategy were dependent on the equipment provided, then the position they fight does not matter. Situation- If the nobles are able to provide only defense related equipment, but knights are fighting from offensive side

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?

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

Source:Veritas Prep

can you please explain how option A is weakening the conclusion. in my view it is strengthening the conclusion.

Since we see that the knights planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position, we conclude that knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

We have to weaken it. So we have to present some information which makes us doubt the conclusion.

(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 location. The point is that if they did not whether they will be fighting offensive or defensive, they cannot plan for it. That might be the reason they did not and it may not be that they think location is not important. Hence it makes us doubt our conclusion.

If you are still unsure, explain why you think it strengthens.

Responding to a pm:


We need to weaken - "Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success"


d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
This option tells us that nobles made the decision about the location of battle based on some factor. It doesn't tell us that they don't tell knights about the location. Knights plan their strategies irrespective of whether they are invading or defending - it could very well be that they know the location but they consider that location is not important. We don't know.

Option (A) clearly says that knights don't KNOW the location. So this certainly makes us doubt the conclusion that they do not consider location important based on the premise that they plan their strategies irrespective of whether they are invading or defending. If they don't KNOW, they CANNOT plan based on whether they are invading or defending.

Hey VeritasPrepKarishma

What about option E?
Here's my thought process

- Knights trained based on the equipments they were given by nobles
- Hence they trained based on the equipment they were given and hence didn't ignore the land on purpose because they don't know

Can you share your thoughts here? Thanks

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.

Conclusion:- Knights didn't think that location of battle can be relavant to success.
Premise :- Knights planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position.

This conclusion can be weakened if it can be proven that selecting location of battle is not their responsibility. What they think is if superseded by noble who appointed them, they can't do anything about it. But still they consider it as AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT BUT THEY CAN NOT ACT ON IT.
(Think it as your situation at work place).

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

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.

Only A is aligned with Pre-thinking.