Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 21:34 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 21:34
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Assumption|      
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
 [1]
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 28 Dec 2022, 12:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I don't see a difference between your intermediate conclusions and the main conclusion, except that the main conclusions states both at once. It's a somewhat unusual structure, because there are 2 parts to the conclusion, call them 'A and B.' Then the author says 'A is true because...' and then 'B is true because...'

("A" = 'painting completed after 1507,' "B" = 'painting completed before 1509.')


If we label the entire statements: "A because PremA" and "B because PremB" as PREMISES that had to be true, then there is no doubt that the conclusion "A and B" are true. So we have to be able to doubt "A because PremA" and/or "B because PremB." But we DON'T want to doubt PremA and PremB.
User avatar
Braintree
User avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2022
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 204
Own Kudos:
129
Given Kudos: 243
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.99
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
Posts: 204
Kudos: 129
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo Updated on: 28 Dec 2022, 13:05
Originally posted by Braintree on 28 Dec 2022, 12:54.
Last edited by Braintree on 28 Dec 2022, 13:05, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
I don't see a difference between your intermediate conclusions and the main conclusion, except that the main conclusions states both at once. It's a somewhat unusual structure, because there are 2 parts to the conclusion, call them 'A and B.' Then the author says 'A is true because...' and then 'B is true because...'

("A" = 'painting completed after 1507,' "B" = 'painting completed before 1509.')


If we label the entire statements: "A because PremA" and "B because PremB" as PREMISES that had to be true, then there is no doubt that the conclusion "A and B" are true. So we have to be able to doubt "A because PremA" and/or "B because PremB." But we DON'T want to doubt PremA and PremB.
Show more

But there is a gap, though subtle, between the 'intermediate conclusion' and the 'main conclusion'. It's a 'fences and posts' issue, one encounters in counting, and actually that gap was what threw me off :-).

The 'intermediate conclusion' "It cannot have been painted after 1509..." allows for the possibility of the painting being completed in 1509; Whereas, the main conclusion "..but before 1509" does not allow for that possibility.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
 [1]
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 28 Dec 2022, 13:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Braintree
ReedArnoldMPREP
I don't see a difference between your intermediate conclusions and the main conclusion, except that the main conclusions states both at once. It's a somewhat unusual structure, because there are 2 parts to the conclusion, call them 'A and B.' Then the author says 'A is true because...' and then 'B is true because...'

("A" = 'painting completed after 1507,' "B" = 'painting completed before 1509.')


If we label the entire statements: "A because PremA" and "B because PremB" as PREMISES that had to be true, then there is no doubt that the conclusion "A and B" are true. So we have to be able to doubt "A because PremA" and/or "B because PremB." But we DON'T want to doubt PremA and PremB.

But there is a gap, though subtle, between the 'intermediate conclusion' and the 'main conclusion'. It's a 'fences and posts' issue, one encounters in counting, and actually that gap was what threw me off :-).

The 'intermediate conclusion' "It cannot have been painted after 1509..." allows for the possibility of the painting being completed in 1509; Whereas, the main conclusion '"..but before 1509" does not allow that possibility.
Show more

Ahhhh, I see. Yeah, again wish they'd been more clear on that. "before the end of 1509" and "before the beginning of 1507" would have been clearer. So you might have been wondering, "If he started at the very beginning of 1507, and finished at the very end of 1509, that is prettttty dang close to 'several years' and the argument still stands."

I guess 2.9 years just doesn't QUITE count as 'several.'
User avatar
Braintree
User avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2022
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 204
Own Kudos:
129
Given Kudos: 243
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.99
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
Posts: 204
Kudos: 129
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 28 Dec 2022, 13:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
Braintree
ReedArnoldMPREP
I don't see a difference between your intermediate conclusions and the main conclusion, except that the main conclusions states both at once. It's a somewhat unusual structure, because there are 2 parts to the conclusion, call them 'A and B.' Then the author says 'A is true because...' and then 'B is true because...'

("A" = 'painting completed after 1507,' "B" = 'painting completed before 1509.')


If we label the entire statements: "A because PremA" and "B because PremB" as PREMISES that had to be true, then there is no doubt that the conclusion "A and B" are true. So we have to be able to doubt "A because PremA" and/or "B because PremB." But we DON'T want to doubt PremA and PremB.

But there is a gap, though subtle, between the 'intermediate conclusion' and the 'main conclusion'. It's a 'fences and posts' issue, one encounters in counting, and actually that gap was what threw me off :-).

The 'intermediate conclusion' "It cannot have been painted after 1509..." allows for the possibility of the painting being completed in 1509; Whereas, the main conclusion '"..but before 1509" does not allow that possibility.

Ahhhh, I see. Yeah, again wish they'd been more clear on that. "before the end of 1509" and "before the beginning of 1507" would have been clearer. So you might have been wondering, "If he started at the very beginning of 1507, and finished at the very end of 1509, that is prettttty dang close to 'several years' and the argument still stands."

I guess 2.9 years just doesn't QUITE count as 'several.'
Show more


That's exactly what I was talking about!! :-) :-)
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
 [1]
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 28 Dec 2022, 13:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gotcha.

Yeah, I would agree 2.9 just doesn't constitute 'several.'

This is also kinda silly since 'several' is for discrete values and years are not really discrete. I also don't even know if I'd call '3' several, for that matter... though I guess the dictionary defines it as 'more than 2.'

REED'S VERY SCIENTIFIC QUANTIFICATION OF WORDS:
Couple/Pair: 2
A few: 3-6
Several: 4-8
User avatar
ahujaparth10
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2020
Last visit: 09 Dec 2023
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 27
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.3
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 25
Kudos: 6
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 02 Mar 2023, 11:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shoonya
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509. It cannot have been painted earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year. It cannot have been painted after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in that year.

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


A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.
E) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.
Show more



My reason to reject (B) was - The argument talks about the painting being completed. Even if he did work on the painting over several years, it can still be completed during that period.


Here is where I went wrong with my reasoning to reject -

Conclusion - A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509

Correct Answer - Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years

Negation - Michelangelo did work on the painting over the course of several years

The negated statement destroys the argument because after we know that M worked on the painting for several years, we don't have a reason to believe that he 'MUST' have completed the painting between 1507-1509. There is a chance that he started in 1507 & completed it before 1509, which also makes it several years, however, the 'MUST' changes to 'Possible'. Which is essentially what destroys the argument.

Learning: In Assumption questions, if a must argument is changed to 'Possible' argument , it still destroys the argument. We're sometimes akin to believing that destroying the argument only means destroying the possibility of it happening at all.
User avatar
Yashvashisht17
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2023
Last visit: 08 May 2024
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 53
Posts: 16
Kudos: 2
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 29 Sep 2023, 16:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(1) Identify the Question Type

The question stem asks what would be most useful in evaluating the argument, so this is an Evaluate the Argument question.

(2) Deconstruct the Argument

The author claims that the painting in question must have been completed between 1507 and 1509. What support is there for this claim? The part about 1507 seems fairly reasonable. How could Michelangelo paint a coin that did not exist yet? However, it’s possible that Michelangelo had advance notice of what the new coin would look like. Perhaps he was shown the design in advance. He might even have designed the coin himself!

The second restriction makes sense, too. If Michelangelo abandoned the pigment in 1509, then it shouldn’t show up on his paintings after that point. However, this argument is specifically about when the painting was completed. Perhaps Michelangelo started with the old pigment and then finished in 1510 or later with the cheaper pigment.

(3) State the Goal

In an Evaluate the Argument question, the goal is to choose a question or piece of information that would make it easier to determine if the conclusion is valid. In this case, information about either of the two limiting dates would be useful. Did Michelangelo have advance notice about the coin? Did he start in one year and finish later?

(4) Work from Wrong to Right

(A) An answer of “yes” to this one might seem to cause trouble for the argument. Maybe Michelangelo still had the chance to use the more expensive pigment after 1509. However, the premise states definitively that Michelangelo abandoned that pigment sometime in 1509, and you do not want to contradict the premise! This answer choice would be helpful if the premise had said that the pigment was no longer produced, but that’s not the issue. The pigment may well have been around after 1509, but Michelangelo wasn’t using it.

(B) CORRECT. This addresses the 1509 side of the conclusion. If Michelangelo worked on the painting for several years, he might have started with the more expensive pigment and then finished in 1510 or later with a different pigment. However, if he did not work on the painting for several years, then he must have completed it in 1509 or earlier, since he stopped using the expensive pigment after that year.

(C) This is an interesting question, but it does not help to evaluate the conclusion. An answer of “yes” wouldn’t impact the argument at all, as it’s already clear that Michelangelo knew of the coin—he painted it! An answer of “no” would make it less likely that Michelangelo had seen the coin even in 1507, but if anything, this would just narrow the range further (maybe the coin became well known in 1508 or 1509).

(D) It would certainly be helpful to test the painting for age. However, notice that like all of the answer choices in this problem, (D) is a yes/no question. A yes/no answer by itself won’t help you to evaluate the author’s conclusion. “Yes” just means that the claim can be tested scientifically, and “no” means that it can’t. In order to evaluate, you would need to know the results of such a test!

(E) This question is out of scope. The argument dates the painting between 1507 and 1509. Knowing that Michelangelo’s style changed in that same period wouldn’t make it any easier to tell if the painting was completed before 1507 (in the old style) or after 1509 (in the new style).
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 771
Own Kudos:
553
Given Kudos: 346
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 771
Kudos: 553
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 05 Oct 2023, 01:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
So let me run my 'Three key question' analysis on the argument.

1). What is the OPPOSITE of the conclusion?

The painting was completed BEFORE 1507 or AFTER 1509.

2). How could that happen, GIVEN THAT THE PREMISES (about the coin and the paint pigment) ARE TRUE?

Completed before 1507:
-The design of the coin was known before the coin itself was minted (Perhaps, even, the coin was designed after the coin Michaelangelo painted)

Completed after 1509:
-Michaelangelo started painting the painting before 1509 with paint that had that pigment, then continued painting the painting after 1509 with paint that didn't have the pigment.

3). What assumptions, then, must be true to save the argument?

-The coin-design was not in the painting *before* the coin itself was minted.
-Michaelangelo didn't start the painting with one pigment, then switch to paints without that pigment.


The right answer 'B' seems to be dealing with this second assumption. Now, it's a little vague, right? Which is annoying. Because, hey, could not he have worked on the painting for 'several years' and still finished in 1508? Sure, why not?

(It seems like the conclusion should have been about 'starting and completing the painting in the year 1508'--my guess is they thought that made the problem too obvious).

But here's the issue. If Michaelangelo worked on the painting for 'several years,' it completely obliterates the reasoning used in the 'pigment' premise. It makes that aspect of the argument completely null and void.

This is subtle, but in Critical Reasoning you're really dealing with the REASONING of an argument, not its TRUTH... These are often co-mingled, but they technically don't need to be.

If Michaelangelo worked on the painting for several years, the REASONING the author is using to say 'it must have been completed before 1509' is obliterated EVEN IF the painting still could have been completed before 1509 after several years of work. We just now have no reason to *think* it was. The argument RELIES on the assumption that the painting was done 'quickly.'

I agree there's some kind of annoying eyebrow raising stuff in this question, but mostly still think B is an objectively good and fair answer.
Show more


Thanks for this but what do you mean by “we don’t have a reason to tjunk this? Think what exactly?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Vegita
User avatar
Joined: 23 May 2020
Last visit: 08 Sep 2025
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
12
Given Kudos: 1,528
Posts: 86
Kudos: 12
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 25 Oct 2023, 16:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

When we select option B, are we not also considering the possibility that the painting contains the cheaper alternative pigments available in 1509? I thought that painting only contains the expensive pigment.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [2]
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 26 Oct 2023, 22:21
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vegita
Hi KarishmaB

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

When we select option B, are we not also considering the possibility that the painting contains the cheaper alternative pigments available in 1509? I thought that painting only contains the expensive pigment.
Show more

The argument doesn't say that the painting doesn't have the cheap alternative. It only says that it has the expensive one which he used till 1509. Also, even if the painting doesn't have the cheap alternative, still this option (B) is correct. A painting contains many pigments, one of them say PB15 of Pthalo Blue. In 1509, say a cheaper alternative to Pthalo Blue comes in but the artist may not have needed Pthalo Blue anymore in the painting so he may not have used the cheaper alternative. Or he may have used the cheaper alternative if he needed more Pthalo Blue in the painting 1509 onwards. The point simply is that he used a pigment available in 1508, say, doesn't mean that he COMPLETED the painting in 1508. He could have worked on it for many years using other pigments (Reds and Yellows etc) and/or using cheaper alternative to Pthalo Blue.
User avatar
Vegita
User avatar
Joined: 23 May 2020
Last visit: 08 Sep 2025
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
12
Given Kudos: 1,528
Posts: 86
Kudos: 12
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 28 Oct 2023, 10:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you for your reply! KarishmaB

Quote:
In 1509, say a cheaper alternative to Pthalo Blue comes in but the artist may not have needed Pthalo Blue anymore in the painting so he may not have used the cheaper alternative. Or he may have used the cheaper alternative if he needed more Pthalo Blue in the painting 1509 onwards. The point simply is that he used a pigment available in 1508, say, doesn't mean that he COMPLETED the painting in 1508. He could have worked on it for many years using other pigments (Reds and Yellows etc) and/or using cheaper alternative to Pthalo Blue.
Show more

OMG! Why didn't I think about that? Completely makes sense. Just because he abandoned the expensive pigment in 1509 does not necessarily mean that he completed the painting before 1509. He could have completed the painting in or after 1509 using the cheaper alternative to complete the rest of the painting.
User avatar
Sa800
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2021
Last visit: 03 Nov 2025
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
21
Given Kudos: 87
Posts: 63
Kudos: 21
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 21 Sep 2024, 22:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I dont understand why B is correct....If M started working at 1507 through 1508 and completed the painting at 1509 before he switched to the new painting, then woudnt that mean he worked on the painting for...several years..???

Can anyone help Lol GMATNinja KarishmaB
User avatar
chillblade
User avatar
Joined: 12 Nov 2024
Last visit: 22 Jul 2025
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 31
Posts: 7
Kudos: 3
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 20 Dec 2024, 07:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here is my comment to those who chose A.

A says: No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

If you negate, you get "Some stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509."

So what that the stocks existed? Does this mean that Michelangelo used the old pigment? Maybe - but you have to assume that. Maybe he did not use the old pigment.

Therefore, eliminate A.
User avatar
A_Nishith
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 455
Own Kudos:
199
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 455
Kudos: 199
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 22 Dec 2024, 10:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument Breakdown:
The painting must have been completed between 1507 and 1509.

Reasoning:
It cannot be earlier than 1507 because of the coin, minted in 1507.
It cannot be later than 1509 because of the pigment Michelangelo abandoned in 1509.

Key Assumption:
For the conclusion to hold, the reasoning must rely on facts about Michelangelo’s access to the coin and the pigment during this timeframe.

Analyzing the Options:
A) No stocks of the abandoned pigment existed after 1509.

If this were true, the argument would gain support, as it would confirm Michelangelo couldn’t have used the pigment after 1509.
However, the argument doesn’t explicitly depend on this. Michelangelo could still abandon the pigment even if stocks were available. This isn't necessary for the argument.
NOT THE ANSWER.

B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.

If Michelangelo started the painting in 1507 but finished after 1509, the timeline in the argument breaks.
To fix this, the argument assumes he completed the painting in a single period (1507–1509).
CORRECT ANSWER.

C) The coin depicted in the painting was known to general public in 1507.

The argument doesn't rely on the coin being known to the public; it only matters that Michelangelo had access to it.
NOT THE ANSWER.

D) The wooden panel on which the painting was executed cannot be tested accurately for age.

While this might affect verifying the painting's timeline, it’s irrelevant to the stated reasoning, which depends on the coin and pigment.
NOT THE ANSWER.

E) Michelangelo's painting style did not change between 1507 and 1509.

The argument doesn't rely on Michelangelo’s style being consistent. The focus is solely on the coin and pigment as indicators of time.
NOT THE ANSWER.

Final Answer: B) Michelangelo did not work on the painting over the course of several years.
User avatar
BinodBhai
User avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2025
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 113
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 252
Posts: 113
Kudos: 23
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 26 Jun 2025, 23:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the argument was rephrased to say "he abandoned the paint for a better quality alternative after 1509..." then identifying B would have been easier.
User avatar
boat32674
User avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2025
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 63
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Real Estate, Finance
Schools: Sloan '26 Yale '26 Haas '26 Stern '26 Booth '26
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V80 DI78
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q85 V81 DI80
GPA: 3.49
Schools: Sloan '26 Yale '26 Haas '26 Stern '26 Booth '26
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q85 V81 DI80
Posts: 19
Kudos: 4
A newly discovered painting on wooden panel by Michelangelo 31 Aug 2025, 01:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB


Yes, the reason this option is option (A) is that it is tempting to jump to it right away. But it is incorrect.

The problem here is that the option says 'No stocks existed after 1509'.
We don't need to assume that. Recall that the argument says that Michelangelo stopped using the pigment, not that the pigment was not manufactured after 1509. It is immaterial whether stock of the pigment existed after 1509. We know that Michelangelo abandoned the use of the pigment after 1509.

Look at the argument:
- The painting must have been completed after 1507 but before 1509.
- Not earlier than 1507 because one of its central figures carries a coin that was not minted until that year.
- Not after 1509 because it contains a pigment that Michelangelo is known to have abandoned when a cheaper alternative became available in 1509.

The argument clearly tells us that Michelangelo abandoned the use of the pigment in 1509. Whether he had stocks of it or not, he abandoned its use in 1509. The argument seems pretty good fit except for one thing - it says that the painting must have been COMPLETED within 1507 to 1509. That's the folly of the argument. Based on the premises, we can say for sure that he painted it during this time frame. We cannot say whether he completed it during this time.
He could have painted it over many years which would include the time frame of 1507 - 1509. When we say that he completed it before 1509, we are assuming that he did the painting in a matter of a few weeks or months, not over many years.

Hence your answer is (B)
Show more

If Michelangelo start painting from 1507 and complete in 1509 , it means he work on the painting over the course of several years. the argument could still work.

What could I be wrong
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts