Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 Oct 2014, 09:25

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 167
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 31

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 15 Nov 2012, 04:31
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (02:10) correct 29% (01:35) wrong based on 268 sessions
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 299
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 32

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship [#permalink] New post 15 Nov 2012, 05:13
Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm on Lake Inferior is still inferior. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in 2 pieces lying close together. The storm's violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.


Vineetk - Have you seen this question on the GMATPrep S/W?
This doesn't seem like one!

Cheers
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 167
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 31

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship [#permalink] New post 15 Nov 2012, 05:16
Jp27 wrote:
Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm on Lake Inferior is still inferior. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in 2 pieces lying close together. The storm's violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore, the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.


Vineetk - Have you seen this question on the GMATPrep S/W?
This doesn't seem like one!

Cheers


The question is correct and taken from GMAT Prep S/W.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 454
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 39

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2012, 02:57
for assumption once I see the likely answer choice, I used the negation test to confirm and do not read other answer choices.

is my thinking correct? for only assumption question, this strategy can save time. I practice I see it is efficient.

but for strengthen and weaken question, I do not use this strategy

any one has any experiece on this, pls comment.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 464
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V0
GPA: 3.23
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 202 [0], given: 11

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 26 Jan 2013, 02:40
Premise 1: Vessel found with the hull in two pieces lying close together...
Premise 2: The storm's violent waves would cause pieces to drift apart if separated...

Gap/Assumption: Found connected --> Hull were connected before sinking

Conclusion: The breakup of the hull is ruled out as the cause of sinking

A. The issue is whether the sinking was caused by the breakup of the hull. OUT!
B. If underwater currents connected the hull, then breakup ocurred before sinking. This doesn't rule out the breakup of the hull. BINGO!
C. Sinking speed is not the issue. The issue is whether the breakup of the hull is a suspect. OUT!
D. Seems like the ship might have sunk before breaking up... The strength of the storm doesn't affect the issue of whether to rule out the breakup of the hull as a cause.


Answer: B
_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 307
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 112 [2] , given: 46

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2013, 20:07
2
This post received
KUDOS
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.When the sunkem wreckege of the vessel was found,researchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together.The storm`s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart.Therefore the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long.

Need detail explanation ......................
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2013, 22:04
mun23 wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.When the sunkem wreckege of the vessel was found,researchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together.The storm`s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart.Therefore the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long.

Need detail explanation ......................


Okay, I'll give this a try.

Premise: Some ship has sunk and no one really knows the cause. Eventually the wreckage was found and a hull was discovered in 2 pieces lying next to each other.

Conclusion: Break up of the hull caused the sinking.

We're assuming nothing else caused the ship to sink and that the pieces of the hull found close to each other are evidence of that.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.

Tells you that the current could have caused the pieces to come close together but we're assuming it didn't. Hence correct.



This is a really bad attempt at explaining.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 22

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2013, 22:16
mun23 wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.When the sunkem wreckege of the vessel was found,researchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together.The storm`s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart.Therefore the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long.

Need detail explanation ......................


You need detailed explanation but you must tell us what is your confusion??
Conclusion: the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.
Premise: Because Hull cannot be close to each other in such case.

Assumption: There is no other possible way by which hull can come close to each other. B says it.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 307
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 46

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2013, 03:11
BangOn wrote:
mun23 wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.When the sunkem wreckege of the vessel was found,researchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together.The storm`s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart.Therefore the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long.

Need detail explanation ......................


You need detailed explanation but you must tell us what is your confusion??
Conclusion: the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.
Premise: Because Hull cannot be close to each other in such case.

Assumption: There is no other possible way by which hull can come close to each other. B says it.


Hi
I was confused about B and the context of the argument seems unclear to me
4 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Posts: 90
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, International Business
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 73 [4] , given: 3

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a [#permalink] New post 01 Apr 2013, 12:45
4
This post received
KUDOS
Hello mun23,

Hope I can help you with this one.

The argument states that the ship was found broken in two pieces. These two pieces were found right next to each other. However, the waves of a storm would have separated any two pieces floating for even a short while in the sea. Since the two pieces were not found far from each other, the ship's breakage might not be the cause for its sinking. The assumption here is that the waves could not have separated and then brought back the two pieces together so that they could be found right next to each other.

This point is clearly stated in option B.

However, let us analyze all the options one by one.

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather. This is irrelevant. The suinken wreckage of the ship was found. We do not care of the probability of a large ship sinking since we already know that this particular ship sunk. We need to find the reason that caused the ship to sink.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again. This option is the right answer based on previous explanation.

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have. This is irrelevant. It gives us no information about the role of waves in sinking the ship or whether the ship broke before sinking.

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface. The waves might not have been strong enough to cause the breakage of ship. However, there might have been some other cause(e.g. colliding with an iceberg) for the breakage of ship which could have lead to its sinking. We are not concerned about the cause of the breakage of the ship.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long. The argument mentions that the pieces were found sunk. Hence, this point is irrelevant.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification.

mun23 wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown.When the sunkem wreckege of the vessel was found,researchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together.The storm`s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart.Therefore the break up of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Ships as large as Edmund Fitzgerald rarely sink except in the most violent weather.

(B)Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again

(C)Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have

(D)The waves of the storm not violent enough to have cause the ship to break up on the surface.

(E)If the ship broke up before sinking,the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface very long.

Need detail explanation ......................

_________________

Thanks
Kris
Instructor at Aspire4GMAT

Visit us at http://www.aspire4gmat.com

Post your queries
Join our free GMAT course

New blog: How to get that 700+
New blog: Data Sufficiency Tricks


Press Kudos if this helps!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 453
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 70

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 24 Apr 2013, 18:08
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 278
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 282

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 26 May 2013, 10:54
We need to keep the conclusion in perspective and then look out for assumption-

Conclusion- the breakup of the hulls did not cause the ship to sink
Premise- 2 pieces found together. He adds telling storms would have taken the 2 pieces far away
Assumption (prethinking) - maybe since the pieces are together it is not the reason for the ship sinking

Ans choice-
?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather. Ok we want info that relates to the 2 pieces of hull. we can put this could be true category.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again. hmmm.. looks good. PARK
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have. :idea: we are worried about ship sinking here
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface. Could be true. again
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long Irrelavent. Uses a few words from the arguement to confuse us

The option B is a 'defender' type assumption which defends the assumption telling 'there is no other cause for the hull being together'
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 117
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [2] , given: 57

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 29 May 2013, 20:20
2
This post received
KUDOS
This is a very good question..took me almost 2 minutes :(

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The argument is about the wreckage of a ship. The cause of the wreck is unknown, but the author tries to hypothesize about what could have caused this disaster. The hull was found in 2 pieces lying close together. The entire argument builds on this premise by stating that the waves would have caused the pieces to drift apart. It jumps to the conclusion that the breakup of the hull cannot be the cause of the sinking, courtesy the premise stated before.

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather. - Out of scope as it tries to establish some relationship between Edmund and the others.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again. - Correct. Even if the waves made the pieces drift apart, the underwater currents could have made the 2 pieces come closer to each other. The author implicitly accepts that such a scenario is not possible.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have. - Wrong. The argument is about the pieces being close to each other and not about the rate of sinking.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface. - Wrong. This merely states that the ship did not sink due to breaking. But nothing is mentioned about the hull or any other premise specific parameter.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long. - Wrong. This is restating what we already know. The pieces of the hull were found in sunken wreckage. This means that they did not remain on the surface for long.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 12

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 30 May 2013, 16:47
Vineetk wrote:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.


Well my approach is to identify the conclusion of the passage first because that's the most important part of the stimulus. Here, that is : Therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

Now , lets look at the answer choices :
A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather.// Not related -> out of context or it's against the mentioned facts. The sink actually sank !
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.// probably true.
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.// Quietly ? Doesn't support the conclusion.
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.// Doesn't talk about the hull-> Eliminate.
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.// Out of context-> Eliminated.

Answer is B.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2290
Followers: 276

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 08 Aug 2014, 23:37
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 61
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 11

Reviews Badge
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 09 Aug 2014, 02:18
btg9788, nicely done.

I really liked your explanation. Kudos for that.
_________________

'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 326
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 47

Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm [#permalink] New post 09 Aug 2014, 10:33
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a severe storm on Lake Superior is still unknown. When the sunken wreckage of the vessel was found, searchers discovered the hull in two pieces lying close together. The storm’s violent waves would have caused separate pieces floating even briefly on the surface to drift apart. Therefore the breakup of the hull can be ruled out as the cause of the sinking.

IT IS BEING ARGUED THAT THOUGH THE TWO PIECES OF HULL HAVE BEEN FOUND CLOSE TOGETHER UNDER WATER, THE BOAT DID NOT SINK DUE TO BREAKAGE OF HULL ABOVE WATER.....BECAUSE IF IT HAD BROKEN ABOVE WATER THE PIECES WOULD HAVE DRIFTED FAR APART.......
THEREFORE THE HULL DID NOT BREAK ABOVE WATER ... BUT MUST HAVE BROKEN UNDERWATER..........AND IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT IT IS NOT THAT THE HULL BROKE ABOVE WATER AND THEN THE UNDERWATER CURRENTS BROUGHT THE TWO PIECES TOGETHER UNDERWATER.......------RATHER THE HULL MUST HAVE BROKEN UNDERWATER AND THEREFORE SINKAGE OF SHIP MAY NOT BE BECAUSE OF BREAKAGE OF HULL ABOVE WATER......

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Ships as large as the Edmund rarely sink except in the most violent weather. IRRELEVANT
B. Underwater currents at the time of the storm did not move the separated pieces of the hull together again.......CORRECT
C. Pieces of the hull would have sunk more quickly than the intact hull would have.QUICKLY ---- IRRELEVANT
D. The waves of the storm were not violent enough to have caused the ship to break up the surface.NO MENTION OF THIS NATURE
E. If the ship broke up before sinking, the pieces of the hull would not have remained on the surface for very long.WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER THE SHIP BROKE IS IRRELEVANT


KUDOS IF U PLEASE.............
Re: The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm   [#permalink] 09 Aug 2014, 10:33
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund Fitzgerald in a mun23 0 01 Apr 2013, 12:45
Wrecked by the Rec's!! briangtsmith 1 22 Oct 2010, 09:22
Wrecked by the Rec's!! briangtsmith 1 22 Oct 2010, 09:21
16 Experts publish their posts in the topic Scientists have several rival theories on the causes of anandnat 36 04 Jul 2010, 09:50
There is strong evidence that the cause of migraines (severe chunjuwu 3 05 Apr 2005, 05:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The cause of the wreck of the ship Edmund in a severe storm

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.