It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 16:28

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

5 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2015
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: 296 [5], given: 0

2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2015, 10:44
5
This post received
KUDOS
16
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

81% (01:45) correct 19% (01:50) wrong based on 1256 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as an appendix to Thorpe's longer Examination. Many scholars, however, doubt the attribution of the Testament to Thorpe because, whereas the Examination is dated 1406, the Testament is dated 1460. One scholar has recently argued that the 1460 date be amended to 1409, based on the observation that when these numbers are expressed as Roman numerals, MCCCCLX and MCCCCIX, it becomes easy to see how the dates might have become confused through scribal error.

Which of the following, if true, would most support the scholar's hypothesis concerning the date of the Testament?

(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament.
(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe.
(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals.
(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460.
(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 296 [5], given: 0

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2015
Posts: 147

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 37

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Sustainability
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2015, 23:21
is this really a 700 level question...i doubt that

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 37

1 KUDOS received
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2697

Kudos [?]: 449 [1], given: 207

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2015, 19:05
1
This post received
KUDOS
through process of elimination, we can get to 2 answers, C and D.
C - if few writers marked dates using only Roman numerals, then the scholar's opinion that the dates might have become confused through scribal error is valid. Someone did not correctly read the dates, and thus made the mistake.
D - this one provides evidence in support of scholar's opinion. Nevertheless, the Testament might have a date of September 20, but it does not mean that the work was done in the same year. With the same luck, he might have mentioned an earlier date.

Based on my analysis, I disagree with the OA...maybe some thoughts here? :)

Kudos [?]: 449 [1], given: 207

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2697

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 207

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2015, 06:09
@e-gmat or mikemcgarry - could you pls. provide any feedback on this question? :)

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 207

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 896 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2015, 03:36
Dear mvictor,

OA is correct here.


You are correct in thinking that "Friday (September 30)" could be even earlier also (before 1409)?

Well, it could be later too (after 1409 or may be after 1460 or may be in the 20th century; we do not know). Isn't it.

But see how clearly the answer choice (D) only mention about the two discussed years i.e. 1409 and 1460. On the basis of this we can logically conclude that this option support scholar's hypothesis.

Hope it helps!

Kudos [?]: 896 [0], given: 30

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2697

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 207

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2015, 06:14
WillGetIt,

I completely agree with you. Yet, the conclusion is "the date should be 1409, because someone did not rewrite correctly from Roman to Arabic numbers". The strengthening question asks for smth that would support this conclusion. The correct answer just simply states 2 facts, while the answer C directly tells us that few writers were using roman numbers, that's why, there was a mistake.
Between C and D, I believe C is more strong.

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 207

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 896 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2015, 06:41
Dear mvictor,

Please tell me, whether the use of Roman numerals by FEW in FIFTEENTH CENTURY have any impact on the argument?

Just have a another thought on this problem.

I would post detailed explanation if you still have doubts.

Kudos [?]: 896 [0], given: 30

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2697

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 207

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2015, 06:49
WillGetIt wrote:
Dear mvictor,

Please tell me, whether the use of Roman numerals by FEW in FIFTEENTH CENTURY have any impact on the argument?

Just have a another thought on this problem.

I would post detailed explanation if you still have doubts.



My thought is, since only few used roman numerals, the likelihood of errors in the translation from roman to arabic numbers is possible. Since the errors are possible, the conclusion stands true. It is the case that only few used roman numerals, and thus, only a handful of people knew how to decipher these numbers (not our case). 15 century - 1401-1500. This covers the period given in the argument, and we know for sure that the author used roman numerals.

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 207

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 131

Kudos [?]: 30 [1], given: 368

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2016, 20:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
I still did not understood , why option C is not supporting the scholar's evidence.
Or we are saying that both C and D supports the evidence, but D supports more than C.
_________________

Feel Free to Press Kudos if you like the way I think :).

Kudos [?]: 30 [1], given: 368

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 896 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2016, 21:33
Hello 282556,

Lets analyze answer choice C:

(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals

Can you say that the few writers who marked dates as Roman numerals wrote Testament of William Thorpe ::::: NO

Ok, now lets modify the answer choice C for better clarity:

(C) Most writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals

Now can we say that the few writers who marked dates as Roman numerals wrote Testament of William Thorpe ::::: NO AGAIN

Because the writes who wrote Testament of William Thorpe could belongs to the left ones (ALL - Most = Few Left).

Hence answer choice C is incorrect.

Hope it helps!

Kudos [?]: 896 [0], given: 30

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 66

Location: United States
2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2016, 17:21
I am unable to comprehend what it actually means? Can anybody explain this.

The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as an appendix to Thorpe's longer Examination. Many scholars, however, doubt the attribution of the Testament to Thorpe because, whereas the Examination is dated 1406, the Testament is dated 1460.

As I understood Testament of William Thorpe(TWT) was published in 1530 but was mentioned in appendix of Examination. This means TWT was written before Examination. But scholars doubt this fact. Since TWT was written in 1460 and Examination in 1406. One of scholars found TWT is dated to be 1409 because of problem in translating Roman numerals..

What is the conclusion here? Can anybody please help me understand this.

Moderators plz. Can u answer this question

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 66

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 14

Premium Member
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2016, 06:25
Since OG (OA) is the final authority, I will go with (D), but (C) is the most supporting (strengthening) option when reasoned among the answer choices (Unless someone can throw more light on why D and not C).

Thanks
_________________

Once you know the answer, it is easy to justify.

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 14

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 82

Kudos [?]: 127 [1], given: 323

Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GMAT 2: 750 Q50 V41
Reviews Badge
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2016, 05:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as an appendix to Thorpe's longer Examination. Many scholars, however, doubt the attribution of the Testament to Thorpe because, whereas the Examination is dated 1406, the Testament is dated 1460. One scholar has recently argued that the 1460 date be amended to 1409, based on the observation that when these numbers are expressed as Roman numerals, MCCCCLX and MCCCCIX, it becomes easy to see how the dates might have become confused through scribal error.

Which of the following, if true, would most support the scholar's hypothesis concerning the date of the Testament?
We need to strengthen the scholar's hypothesis that the dates might have been confused through scribal error.

(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament.

Irrelevant to the question asked since we do not need to know when William Thorpe died

(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe.

Does not help ascertain the date , only the author

(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals.

Crucial to note the difference between "Few" and "A Few". Few, when used without a preceding 'a', means "very few" or "none at all". On the other hand, a few is used to indicate "not a large number".
The way this answer choice is written it actually weakens the scholars hypothesis because if almost no one wrote their dates using only Roman Numeral , the chance of scribal error is lower.

(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460.

Is correct since September 20, 1460 was not a Friday and so the text does not allude to that year.

(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406.

Again "few" here means almost none. But it does not matter if the testament not reference historical events post 1406 ( Or maybe it references 1 event post 1406 which could well be in 1460) Uncertain hence incorrect.
_________________

Appreciate any KUDOS given ! :)

Kudos [?]: 127 [1], given: 323

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 56

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2016, 21:56
D is the correct answer.
Because it strengthen the argument.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 56

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 08 May 2016
Posts: 32

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 24

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Aerospace and Defense)
2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2016, 15:21
Why is choice (c) wrong:
(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals.

Nowhere in the question is "England" mentioned.
_________________

What's your totem?

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 24

2 KUDOS received
SC Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1508

Kudos [?]: 1227 [2], given: 896

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2016, 08:35
2
This post received
KUDOS
Premise: Testament of William Thorpe --> published in 1530 --> Scholars doubt attribution to Thorpe
Examination – 1406 but Testament – 1460.

Scholar --> 1460 to be corrected to 1409 as roman numerals are confused.

(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament. – Incorrect. Weakens by supporting the date of Testament as 1460.

(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe. – Incorrect. There is only one work discussed here – a testament of William Thorpe.

(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals. – Incorrect. Okay they marked using roman numerals, but does this strengthen the hypothesis that the date has to be corrected? No.

(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460. – Correct. Supports the hypothesis by stating that the year has to be corrected to 1409.

(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406. – Incorrect. No effect on the scholar’s hypothesis.

Answer: D

Kudos [?]: 1227 [2], given: 896

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jan 2010
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 120

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.56
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Dec 2016, 03:21
This seemed to be a tricky question, especially with a couple of the choices. Let me take a stab at an explanation.

notwithstanding wrote:
The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as an appendix to Thorpe's longer Examination. Many scholars, however, doubt the attribution of the Testament to Thorpe because, whereas the Examination is dated 1406, the Testament is dated 1460. One scholar has recently argued that the 1460 date be amended to 1409, based on the observation that when these numbers are expressed as Roman numerals, MCCCCLX and MCCCCIX, it becomes easy to see how the dates might have become confused through scribal error.


The argument boils down to:
1. Examination in 1406, Testament in 1460
2. Scholar states the date of the Testament be changed from 1460 to 1409 --> because:
3. Roman numerals for both years look similar, so can be confused

notwithstanding wrote:
Which of the following, if true, would most support the scholar's hypothesis concerning the date of the Testament?


Question requests us to strengthen scholar's hypothesis: so we could do this by providing evidence that supports 1409 and/or opposes 1460

(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament. this could go either way- 1460 or 1409, because Thorpe died after 1460
(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe. irrelevant- does not reveal anything about the dates in question i.e., 1409 and 1460
(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals. irrelevant - few writers does not mean Thorpe was the only such writer to use roman numerals; also, does not help resolve the question above
(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460. good choice- date mentioned in Testament refers to a date in the year 1409 - so this provides evidence that supports 1409
(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406. initially a confusing choice, but realized this could go both ways- if the Testament were written in 1409 or 1460, it could have "few references" to events that occurred after 1406. Or, looked at in another way: if Testament were written in 1460, that does not mean it needs to have "many" references to events after 1406

D seems to be the best choice.
_________________

And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking...

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 120

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 19

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.42
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Reviews Badge
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2017, 03:20
I was between C and D and incorrectly chose C. I am having the trouble seeing why C is wrong. If not many writers used roman numerals, one could assume the scribes may not have had much practice and hence made the careless error? Whereas if everyone used roman numerals, the scribes would have had practice and not made the error

D could just be a coincidence?
_________________

Please give KUDOS if this post was helpful!

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 19

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1223

Kudos [?]: 2033 [0], given: 462

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2017, 20:23
Quote:
The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as an appendix to Thorpe's longer Examination. Many scholars, however, doubt the attribution of the Testament to Thorpe because, whereas the Examination is dated 1406, the Testament is dated 1460. One scholar has recently argued that the 1460 date be amended to 1409, based on the observation that when these numbers are expressed as Roman numerals, MCCCCLX and MCCCCIX, it becomes easy to see how the dates might have become confused through scribal error.

Which of the following, if true, would most support the scholar's hypothesis concerning the date of the Testament?

(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament.
(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe.
(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals.
(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460.
(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406.

okay wrote:
I was between C and D and incorrectly chose C. I am having the trouble seeing why C is wrong. If not many writers used roman numerals, one could assume the scribes may not have had much practice and hence made the careless error? Whereas if everyone used roman numerals, the scribes would have had practice and not made the error

D could just be a coincidence?

okay, that analysis is quite creative, but here's why choice (C) is not the best answer...

The scholar's hypothesis is "based on the observation that when these numbers are expressed as Roman numerals, it becomes easy to see how the dates might have become confused through scribal error." Notice the word "when." Yes, writers would have more practice if Roman numerals were used all the time, but if Roman numerals were not actually used in fifteenth-century England, then the scholar's observation would have no relevance!

Also, the scholar's hypothesis does not depend upon levels of practice. According to the scholar, it's an easy mistake to make (with or without practice), so if we could determine that Roman numerals were actually used in fifteenth-century England, the scholar's hypothesis might be applicable.

In order for choice (C) to work, we would have to assume that even though most writers in fifteenth-century England did NOT mark dates using only Roman numerals, for some reason the dates of these two particular works were marked using only Roman numerals. That's too much of a stretch, and choice (D) is a much better answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Friendly warning: I'm bad at PMs

GMAT Ninja Wednesdays LIVE on YouTube
Join us, and ask your questions in advance!

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses | Comparisons, part I |
November webinar schedule

Kudos [?]: 2033 [0], given: 462

Re: 2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as   [#permalink] 19 Oct 2017, 20:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by

2016 OG: The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.