There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century

Question

There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century book describing a journey Marco Polo of Venice supposedly made to China, yet none contains any description of the Great Wall of China. Since Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described and since the book reports in detail on other, less notable, structures, the omission of the Great Wall strongly suggests that Marco Polo never did actually travel to China.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The original manuscript of the book describing Marco Polo's supposed journey is no longer in existence.
(B) In his travels, Marco Polo certainly visited his family's trading posts on the Black Sea, where he would have had contact with people who had traveled to the various parts of China that the book describes.
(C) Many notable structures in China that are described in the book were hundreds of years old at the time Marco Polo supposedly traveled to China.
(D) At some places along the Great Wall, a traveler crossing the Wall could do so without realizing that it was an enormous structure.
(E) Certain pieces of accurate information about thirteenth-century China are contained in some of the known versions of the book but not in all known versions.

Focus Exam 5.

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century book describing a journey Marco Polo of Venice supposedly made to China, yet none contains any description of the Great Wall of China. Since Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described and since the book reports in detail on other, less notable, structures, the omission of the Great Wall strongly suggests that Marco Polo never did actually travel to China.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

the omission of the Great Wall strongly suggests that Marco Polo never did actually travel to China

The support for the conclusion is provided by the following statenents:

Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described

the book reports in detail on other, less notable, structures

We see that the reasoning of the argument is pretty straightforward. Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall if he made the journey described in the book. So, the fact that the Great Wall was not mentioned indicates that he didn't actually travel to China.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

This is a Strengthen question, and the correct answer will somehow strengthen the support for the conclusion.

(A) The original manuscript of the book describing Marco Polo's supposed journey is no longer in existence.

This choice doesn't have much effect on the argument.

If it has any effect, it weakens the argument.

After all, if the original manuscript is no longer in existence, then it could be that the original manuscript did mention the Great Wall, in which case the case for the conclusion would fall apart.

In any case, the fact that the original manuscript no longer exists doesn't make the argument more convincing.

Eliminate.

(B) In his travels, Marco Polo certainly visited his family's trading posts on the Black Sea, where he would have had contact with people who had traveled to the various parts of China that the book describes.

This choice is not a conventional strengthener in that it doesn't directly support the conclusion that Marco Polo didn't travel to China. At the same time, we can choose this choice since none of the other choices work and since it does provide some confirmation that the conclusion is correct.

After all, if this choice is true, then we have a reasonable explanation for how a book about Marco Polo could describe sights in China even if he didn't go there: he heard about them from people who did go there.

While that information doesn't mean that he didn't go to China, it does make the conclusion that he didn't go there easier to believe.

So, this choice strengthens the argument.

Keep.

(C) Many notable structures in China that are described in the book were hundreds of years old at the time Marco Polo supposedly traveled to China.

This choice has no effect on the argument.

After all, structures are "notable" or not regardless of their age. So, the fact that some notable structures were hundreds of years old doesn't really change what we know about them that's relevant to the argument.

Also, notice that this choice says that "many," rather than all, of the structures described in the book were hundreds of years old. So, we can't make the case that this choice strengthens the argument by indicating that the book mentions only old structures that even people who had not traveled to China would have known about. After all, given what this choice says, the book could have mentioned new structures as well.

Eliminate.

(D) At some places along the Great Wall, a traveler crossing the Wall could do so without realizing that it was an enormous structure.

This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument.

After all, if this choice is true, then it's possible that Marco Polo crossed the Wall without noticing it. In that case, the fact that the Wall is not mentioned in the book would not mean that Marco Polo didn't go to China. Instead, what could have happened is that he went to China, but the book didn't mention the Wall because it didn't seem notable.

Eliminate.

(E) Certain pieces of accurate information about thirteenth-century China are contained in some of the known versions of the book but not in all known versions.

This choice does not have any clear effect on the argument, but if anything, it weakens it.

After all, if some information appears in some versions but not others, then it could be that information about the Great Wall was contained in lost versions but left out of the known versions, or perhaps the book is simply incomplete in general.

In any case, the fact that information was left out of some versions certainly doesn't make us more convinced that the reason the Great Wall isn't mentioned is that Marco Polo didn't see it because he didn't travel to China.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  B

Saya12345 · Answer

In the conclusion, the author emphasises on "the  omission of the Great Wall  strongly suggests that Marco Polo never did actually travel to China" - while, the correct option doesn't address that. Because, the relativse of MarcoPolo - those who travelled to China could have talked about the Great Wall - Infact would most probably have talked about it, as it was one of the greatest structures of those times. So, if his realtives visisted china, they would have seen it and talked about it.
Hence, the Option B doesn't sound correct.

(Altough, that's the option I picked as none of the other options synched with the question.)

Batmat · Answer

Why not option d as it explains the reason of omitting the great Wall of china

Posted from my mobile device

Sidiano7 · Answer

It weakens it rather than strengthens it

hchiaki · Answer

And what about C? Why did you eliminate it?

DmitryFarber · Answer

hchiaki

It might help to know why you found C tempting. Did it seem to suggest that he could easily have known about these things without visiting? That doesn't give us enough to know whether he actually went. Surely, he could also have know about these things if he did go. On the other hand, even if they were much newer, he could have heard about them and described them in his book. Now, if C said that he only described things that were very old and had been written about, and he didn't report on any newer things, we might have a good answer.

hchiaki · Answer

Hi, thanks for taking the time to give me some insights! Really appreciate!

Actually, I was thinking that since he only described the things that were very old (can have been written about), that actually strengthened the argument that he might have not visited China... That is what I've thought. As per your message, I understand that it's not an enough strenghtener? Or did I just miss your point. Thanks again for elaborating!

Matram6 · Answer

Argument: Marco Polo did not go to China. 
Support: His accounts did not mention the great wall of china but did include detailed accounts of less notable structures. 
GAP: How did Marco Polo write about other strucutures without visiting China?

A- out of scope
 B- Strenghtnes the argument and explains the gap 
C- Trap answer, tries to imply the structures he describes are gone, but could just be old
D- Weakens the argument by explaining how Marco Polo could go to china and overlook the wall
E- Out of Scope

jain67 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATNinja   DmitryFarber  Can you please explain this question?

aryanrgupta · Answer

The aim of this question is to strenghten the argument.

The argument is: He did not visit china, whereas option D says that he did visit china but did not notice the wall.

I hope that makes it clear for you.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards