Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve

the matter here is why C is wrong

I think C is wrong because C RESTATES EVIDENCE. Restate or contradict evidence is alway wrong in A, W, S questions. Restate evidence can be correct in Inference questions.

this is trick many Gmapprep questions contain. Please, download CR gmatprep question collection to practice.

In OG book, I do not see this kind of trick-restate or contradict evidence.

the answer choice which RESTATE EVIDENCE is very attractive in Assumption and Strenthen questions. The answer choice which CONTRADICT EVIDENCE is very attractive in Weaken questions. We only realize this trick wrong answer choice when we see the correct choice beside. When we see 2 answer choice are attractive, think about this trick to be the winner

there are 2 tricks I see on gmatprep questions, 1- affecting conclusion outside context of evidence, 2- offer scenario which strenthen or weaken but do not offer action which strenthen, weaken. though it is easy for us to understand the explanation, we get the question right hard.

we have to master this trick by creating an arguement, creating the answer choices.

hi, friends, please, give your idea on this. and remember, pracite on formal questions like this.

A classic example of the importance of trying to brainstorm and accurately predict the assumption before you look through the answer choices!

We're trying to conclude that the destruction in question was caused by a particular earthquake that occurred in A.D. 365. But the only premise is that the destruction was caused by some earthquake. What's the gap here? We don't have any evidence that the earthquake responsible for the damage was the one that happened in A.D. 365!

We need to assume that this particular earthquake (and not some other) was indeed the culprit. Since this is a Strengthen question, the correct answer should somehow affirm that assumption.

(A) If anything, this weakens because these vessels were from the time period "preceding and following A.D. 365. Eliminate.
(B) Here we have artifacts before the date in question, but not after the date in question. This would definitely support the hypothesis that the earthquake occurred in A.D. 365. Leave in for now.
(C) We've already established that there was an earthquake near Cyprus in A.D. 365 ("known to have occurred near [Cyprus] in A.D. 365"). The question of whether this was the particular earthquake that destroyed Kourion still remains1. Eliminate.
(D) Same problem as (A) – we have artifacts on either side of the date in question (A.D. 365). Eliminate.
(E) Another weakening statement. If stone inscriptions dated to a time after 365 A.D. were found in Kourion, that actually suggests the city was destroyed at a later data. Eliminate.

So, we're down to the correct answer (B). Notice that without understanding what we really want the correct answer to do – i.e., provide evidence of civilization of before A.D. 365 but not after - we could very easily be led astray here by answer choices. Even when you can't successfully predict exactly the correct answer assumptions-related questions, you should still take the time to give it your best shot!

Cheers,
Mark

Hi Mike, I am not able to understand the difference between option B & C. As per "MarkSullivan" the earthquake must had happend in A.D. 365 but option B can also mean that earthquake happened in 364 or any year prior to A.D. 365. In option C the word "Near" is the cause of concern. Can you kindly explain where am i wrong. Waiting for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame

MarkSullivan indeed gave a very good explanation for this post.
Fame, one BIG GMAT CR idea ---- the evidence given in the prompt is non-negotiably true. We just have to accept it as fact. In this particular prompt, one such fact is "a major earthquake [was] known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365." For the purpose of analyzing this question, that is gospel truth, beyond all debate.

Because the evidence is non-negotiably true, any answer choice that either re-affirms the evidence or directly contradicts the evidence is not correct.
Option (C) directly restates the fact given in the prompt --- the only thing added is that apparently this earthquake is mentioned in modern histories of Cyprus. Both the prompt and (C) use the word "near" in precisely the same way --- the epicenter was not on the island, but near the island. Answer (C) restates the evidence of the prompt ---> automatically wrong.

By contrast, (B) introduces a completely new line of thinking, which dovetails nicely with the rest of the argument. I believe you didn't read careful what MarkSullivan said. He said: "Here we have artifacts before the date in question, but not after the date in question. This would definitely support the hypothesis that the earthquake occurred in A.D. 365." In other words, the town of Kourion was making coins in 362, in 362, in 364 --- perfectly fine coin manufacturing in all those years. Then the earthquake strikes in 365, so no more coins. Choice (B) clearly says: "coins minted before that year were found in abundance", which implies --- plenty of coins from 362 & 363 & 364. In other words, plenty of coins right up until the earthquake.
More to the point, you are calling everything into question. That's sloppy thinking. You are not being precise in the way you approach CR. The evidence is absolutely unquestionable. One piece of evidence is: the earthquake was known to occur in 365. That's beyond doubt. There is absolutely no ambiguity about the date of the earthquake, so any attention to the date of the earthquake is entirely besides the point.
The conclusion of the argument is NOT that an earthquake occurred in 365. The existence of that earthquake at that date is simply presented as fact, beyond debate. The conclusion is that the town of Kourion was suddenly destroyed in that earthquake. That's where your attention should be, not on the date of the earthquake.

GMAT CR is NOT about questioning everything. Distractor answers, like (C) here, are designed to get you puzzling about things that are actually beyond debate. You have to get into the habit of recognizing that all the evidence given is true and absolutely beyond question. Otherwise, the distractor answers will continue to trap you.

Mike

I get why answer B is correct, but I still can't shake off why answer C isn't correct.

The conclusion "Archeologists have hypothesized the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365.".

When I looked at it, I was thinking of finding answers that support that in fact there was a major earthquake near the island (Ans C) and not something else that destroyed Kourion. Ans B supports the fact that the city doesn't exist after A.D. 365 but doesn't explain how the city was destroyed.

I have a hard time figuring what's really at play here and what the real answer should be.

Dear beef001,
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, notice that Mark Sullivan of MGMAT gave a good detailed explanation on this page, and then I did as well. Did you read through these explanations? We both addressed this very point about which you are asking? Is there something in our explanations that you don't understand? If you read our responses and are still left with doubts, please tell us which part of what we said doesn't resonate with you or convince you.

Two important skills for being an excellent student:
1) take maximum advantage of all the resources you have at your disposal
2) when you have the opportunity to ask questions, ask excellent questions. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/asking-exc ... questions/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis?


The following suggests that the city was destroyed

Thus after 365 AD the ancient city of Kourion did not exist !!

A. Bronze ceremonial drinking vessals that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion. - Incorrect the sentence talks about existance of the ancient city of Kourion after 365AD

B. No coins minted after A.D. 365 were foundin Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance. - Correct !!

C. Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occured near the island in A.D. 365. - Out of Scope

D. Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and 400 were found in Kourion. - Incorrect the sentence talks about existance of the ancient city of Kourion after 365AD, ie 365AD - 400 AD

E. Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyrpus after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion - Incorrect the sentence talks about existance of the ancient city of Kourion after 365AD

In MUST BE TRUE questions... would C make a lot of sense??

Dear deependra1234,

I'm happy to respond.

Even if this were a "must be true" question, I don't think (C) would work. Right now, from the prompt, we know for a fact that the major earthquake occurred in A.D. 365. When did this fact become evident to researchers? Was this known for hundreds of years or was it discovered, say, by revolutionary discoveries just last year? We don't know how long this fact has been established.

Now, these modern histories of Cyprus--probably published, say, in the last 50 years. Were these published long after the fact of this earthquake was known, or before? Again, we don't know. There's a possibility because of timing it might not have been known to the authors of the books.

Suppose the earthquake as fact has been well-established for a while and suppose every author of a book about the modern history of Cyprus clearly knew about the earthquake--even then, does it mean that these authors would mention it? Authors only mention facts that fit their agenda. We know this earthquake happened, but we don't know anything about whatever political or economic ramifications it had. Was the earthquake in the middle of a populated area, or was it in the wilderness somewhere, such that no one at the time was aware? We don't know. Even if the earthquake simply had the effect, say, of killing a bunch of poor peasants, it is possible that it had zero effect on the economic situation as a whole and zero effect on political succession of power, and therefore was not worthy of mention in the history books. Even if it had some significant economic or political effect, an author with a different agenda might not want to mention it.

There are at least a few reasons that this fact would not fit the "must be true" criterion, given what we know. The "must be true" questions is in many respects identical to the inference questions. I will recommend this blog:
GMAT Critical Reasoning: Find the Conclusion or Inference

Does this make sense?
Mike

GMATNinja




Why do we not need a limit for specifying a particular year for pre-365 as in your explanation for (D)

Choice (B) specifically differentiates between coins minted BEFORE AD 365 and AFTER AD 365. We don't care about the exact year, as long as we know whether we are talking about before 365 or after 365.

With (D), on the other hand, we don't know if they are referring to pre- or post-AD 365.

I hope that helps!

Key points: The question asks what would support the hypothesis, so we need to identify what makes that hypothesis tick.

Breakdown: The last line of the paragraph tells us that the archaeologists have hypothesized that the heap of rubble that used to be Kourion is a testament to "a major earthquake" in A.D. 365. Thus, the correct answer must build from this idea of a thriving city that was cut down suddenly (in Vesuvian fashion, only without the volcano).

Answers: Rather than focus on what makes an entire answer strong or weak, I like to focus on particularly weak points to disprove the incorrect ones. Why? Because this is what I do when I break down the responses myself, and sometimes the long-winded ones will have just a word or two that steer the entire answer into dangerous territory. Also, when I refer to traffic lights, they mean the same thing you would think they mean.

(A) dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365

Analysis: If something came both before and after the catastrophic event, then what impact did the earthquake have at all? This information would appear to weaken the hypothesis if anything, and a reversal is not what we are after. Red light.

(B) Coins that had been produced in great quantities prior to A.D. 365 suddenly ceased to be produced

Analysis: On the surface of it, what do coins have to do with an earthquake? Nothing. Still, with an eye on the hypothesis and the sudden nature of the drop-off in minted coins, we can conclude that something drastic must have happened in A.D. 365. The archaeologists supply one such educated proposal. Am I ready to get behind this one 100 percent? Not on GMAT™ Critical Reasoning questions. (I got burned on a couple when I started out, and I have been cautious about them ever since.) Yellow light.

(C) Most modern histories... mention that an earthquake occurred... in A.D. 365

Analysis: This one gets shaky from the start: "modern histories" can say whatever, but their contents are not to be taken as gospel, as "most" would attest. (What do other modern histories say? Which ones are correct?) All we know about truth from the frame of the question is that it is true that "Most modern histories... mention..." NOT that those events actually transpired the way the histories describe. Moreover, perhaps former histories made points that were just as accurate, but with a different bent. Of course, such speculative thoughts are beside the point. To finish this one off, we already know from the paragraph that "a major earthquake [was] known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365." Since when does reiterating a fact strengthen any reasoning? Red light.

(D) in the century between A.D. 300 and A.D. 400

Analysis: This answer is missing the catastrophic event. As we saw in (A), evidence of any objects, whether vessels or, here, statues, that both precede and follow the earthquake in A.D. 365 would work against the hypothesis in question. Red light.

(E) the Greek alphabet was used in stone inscriptions found in Kourion

Analysis: A writing system that had spread from Greece was used by a culture off the shores of Greece. So what? That sounds fairly logical, but it has nothing to do with the hypothesis or a sudden catastrophic event that would need to be explained. Red light.

Guessing: I suspect that most test-takers would be able to eliminate (A) and (D), since they are so similar in construct. That is, what would make one of those answers any more correct than the other? (E) is another one that just misses the boat. Just because the Kourionites used the Greek alphabet, the same one that was used in Cyprus after A.D. 365, does not mean they must have faced a devastating event. That leaves a 50/50 between (B) or (C). At first glance, (C) would appear to address the earthquake quite handily, but from the opening word of the response, "most," it veers off course and never returns.

B it is:
suddenly the coins disappeared in AD365. so, something happened in this year, what: the earthquake which destroyed the city of Kourion

conclusion: archaeologist's hypothesis is true
In order to strengthen, we need to prove that there was no evidence of post 365 AD things in the debris

A: No. What if they were from after 365 AD. Rejected.
B: Contender
C: Its a premise in the argument. So it's not a new information. It just restates the premise. Not a strong strengthener.
D: No. Same as A. Rejected
E: opposite. Rejected

IMO B is the correct answer

Hi sir, I have problem understanding the hypothesis "Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365."

What are the archaeologists trying to hypothesise? (a) Destruction was due to major earthquake? (b) Earthquake known to have occurred near the island ?

the answer suggested that it's the latter (b). What was your approach to derive the correct hypothesis?

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry egmat BrentGMATPrepNow

Please explain why A weakens - I think it doesn't impact because the vessels were available before 365 and after 365 too, it doesn't say it originated after 365 - where am i going wrong? I would assume this option and D have similar implications.