Archeologists have discovered ancient coins in near Antioch, Syria fro

Hey,

I wanted to raise one point. Option D clearly highlights that the Romans were the one to establish the trade center. But it doesn't contribute in anything to the fact that was there any trade center at all? The main argument contributes to the conclusion that if not trade center then at least a hub(which makes me believe that was the primary purpose of the argument - to ascertain that the place actually was a trade center or hub or to establish Romans were the one who established it).

The argument doesn't seem to be focusing on Romans, but the city itself, and hence the answer choice D.

Please point out flaw in the above reasoning.

Very tricky between (d) and (e), it reminds me to read the argument very closely

the task here is to connect between Roman and that Romans established the center of trade.

option (e) though provide evidence that Antioch could be the hub, but it could have been setup by anyone else.

Can someone explain how option D is correct!

Here's how my reasoning goes

Lets first consider the stimulus..and I will make bold the words on which I paid attention to in order to solve this

Archeologists have discovered ancient coins in near Antioch, Syria from a variety of neighboring countries DATING TO THE TIME OF the Roman Empire. They have inferred that the Roman Empire established the Antioch as a center of trade, or at least a hub through which trade routes of many countries passed.

I raised a question..only the coins' dating to the time of roman empire doesnt mean that it was actually the Romans who established it. We know for sure that the coins were there(thats why they were found there), but did the Romans influence or cause it? It well could be any other countries that also existed during the time that the Roman empire existed, and those countries could have brought them in!

Valid refute? Yes? This refute is what we have to weaken.

Now read D:
There were virtually no coins from neighboring countries found in Antioch that dated to the time prior to the advent of the Roman Empire in the city.

This option is pointing out that prior to the Roman Empire's incoming/advent/establishment in the city, the coins did not exist..which means that the Romans influenced this inflow of coins in some or the other way.

hehe..."false weakener" question here...
if no coins were found prior to the RE's rule, then most likely the archeologist's conclusion is strengthened.

D

Answer should be E.

D -->There were virtually no coins from neighboring countries found in Antioch that dated to the time prior to the advent of the Roman Empire in the city.
But the argument says the : Archeologists have discovered ancient coins in near Antioch, Syria from a variety of neighboring countries dating to the time of the Roman Empire

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Reading the question: we find an extremely brief argument. We can compare with Taxes and Growth: both questions present arguments, and both arguments are brief. The argument in Taxes and Growth has a structure more like a syllogism, so this question may not be quite so perfect for term matching as Taxes and Growth, but we can still try term matching. Term matching is viable on some level whenever you have an argument with evidence and a conclusion.

Creating a filter: the key terms in this argument are "coins," in the evidence, and "trade center," in the conclusion. The argument's purpose is to establish a connection between these two concepts, so the answer choice that most strengthens our connection between "coins" and "trade center" will be the correct answer. With that criterion as our filter, we can head to the answer choices.

Applying our filter, we can examine each choice in turn first for whether it has to do with the linkage of 1) coins and 2) trade center. Which answer choices mention both the coins and the trade center? None of them! Taking a step back and looking at basic relevance, we can see that choices (D) and (E) are most relevant. If we can logically prove one, we'll have our answer.

Logical proof: If we accept the negation of (D) as fact, then there were coins predating the Roman Empire in the area. This fact would destroy the argument, because in that case coins would not be proof that Romans established the center of trade. Since accepting the negation of (D) destroys the argument, accepting (D) itself strengthens the argument: it patches a critical weakness in the argument. How about (E)? Choice (E) is tricky, because it gives strength to the conclusion of the argument. It introduces a new piece of evidence supporting that conclusion, and that does strengthen the conclusion. But it is less material to the argument given, which involves the connection between coins and the conclusion drawn from the coins found. Choice (D) "passes" the negation test and (E) does not.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D).

Why choice E is incorrect? It gives piece evidence to support the conclusion.

I have myself marked E too. But upon reading the replies, I have understood the reasoning behind choosing D as the answer. Option E establishes the fact that Antioch was in fact a trading centre. But, we need to prove that the Roman Empire established the Antioch. Maybe , a neighboring country established the centre.
Option D meanwhile strengthens the assumption but saying that it was only after the arrival of the romans, the centre of trade was set up.

Brilliant Question imo.

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.