GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 17:01

### 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

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

# A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 58427
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2018, 23:58
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (02:05) correct 27% (02:23) wrong based on 483 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 144
Location: India
Schools: ISB '20, GMBA '20
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Jul 2018, 00:30
Bunuel wrote:
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.

IMo A, as if this is negated then the dendrochronologists will not be able to measure accurately the number of rings and would result is a erroneous age

from below discussion i got i was wrong , learned to read the question more carefully,

editing the post so that it might not confuse others , correct answer is D
_________________
If this post helped you learn something pls give kudos

Originally posted by doomedcat on 27 Jun 2018, 00:24.
Last edited by doomedcat on 01 Jul 2018, 00:30, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 225
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2018, 02:36
conclusion is that they will be able to determine whether it is more than or less than 1000 years old.

For thuis, we need D to be true. On negating, even if the tree were more than 1000 years old, they would not be able to confirm this as the table itself is not thick enough
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 508
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2018, 03:00
Quote:
is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring

Quote:
the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

It will only be possible for dendrochronologists to determine the above only if the table has 1000 tree rings. If the table doesn't have 1000 tree ring, then the entire argument fails.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2018
Posts: 35
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2018, 03:39
The dendrochronologists can only be able to date the table precisely if all the rings in the tree trunk are a part of the table, or else they wont be able to date the table precisely. Hence they assume that the table is large enough to accommodate all the rings.

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2018, 08:38
1
1
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Boil it down - The dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
Type - Assumption

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced. - Irrelevant -- it does not make a difference even if the artist used the trunk in other works

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down. - Incorrect --Our conclusion is NOT whether the tree is at least 1000 years old but whether the dendrochronologists will be able to determine the age

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year. -- Irrelevant-- Even if the artist took some breaks, it does not affect

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings. -- Correct -- Negate this and the argument falls apart ; If the table used wasn't large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings, the dendrochronologists won't be able to determine the same

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.-- Irrelevant - the dendrochronologists need to determine whether the tree lived to be at least 1000 years

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 4
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 01:38
Skywalker18 wrote:
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Boil it down - The dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
Type - Assumption

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced. - Irrelevant -- it does not make a difference even if the artist used the trunk in other works

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down. - Incorrect --Our conclusion is NOT whether the tree is at least 1000 years old but whether the dendrochronologists will be able to determine the age

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year. -- Irrelevant-- Even if the artist took some breaks, it does not affect

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings. -- Correct -- Negate this and the argument falls apart ; If the table used wasn't large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings, the dendrochronologists won't be able to determine the same

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.-- Irrelevant - the dendrochronologists need to determine whether the tree lived to be at least 1000 years

Trying to understand option B- dendrochronologists gonna check the table, although not clearly mentioned, to determine whether age of the tree is greater than 1000 and if the trunk, used for table, had been cut long ago then anyway the test is not going to be successful. So option B should be Winner in that case.

Posted from my mobile device
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 02:18
tamal099 wrote:
Skywalker18 wrote:
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Boil it down - The dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
Type - Assumption

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced. - Irrelevant -- it does not make a difference even if the artist used the trunk in other works

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down. - Incorrect --Our conclusion is NOT whether the tree is at least 1000 years old but whether the dendrochronologists will be able to determine the age

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year. -- Irrelevant-- Even if the artist took some breaks, it does not affect

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings. -- Correct -- Negate this and the argument falls apart ; If the table used wasn't large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings, the dendrochronologists won't be able to determine the same

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.-- Irrelevant - the dendrochronologists need to determine whether the tree lived to be at least 1000 years

Trying to understand option B- dendrochronologists gonna check the table, although not clearly mentioned, to determine whether age of the tree is greater than 1000 and if the trunk, used for table, had been cut long ago then anyway the test is not going to be successful. So option B should be Winner in that case.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi tamal099,

Even if the tree was cut long ago , the dendrochronologists should be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old (Since dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years)

But what if only a part of horizontal cross section of the trunk was used in making the table ? If this is true, then dendrochronologists WON'T be able to determine the age .

Hope this helps!
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 154
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 02:38
Skywalker18 wrote:
tamal099 wrote:
Skywalker18 wrote:
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Boil it down - The dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
Type - Assumption

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced. - Irrelevant -- it does not make a difference even if the artist used the trunk in other works

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down. - Incorrect --Our conclusion is NOT whether the tree is at least 1000 years old but whether the dendrochronologists will be able to determine the age

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year. -- Irrelevant-- Even if the artist took some breaks, it does not affect

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings. -- Correct -- Negate this and the argument falls apart ; If the table used wasn't large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings, the dendrochronologists won't be able to determine the same

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.-- Irrelevant - the dendrochronologists need to determine whether the tree lived to be at least 1000 years

Trying to understand option B- dendrochronologists gonna check the table, although not clearly mentioned, to determine whether age of the tree is greater than 1000 and if the trunk, used for table, had been cut long ago then anyway the test is not going to be successful. So option B should be Winner in that case.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi tamal099,

Even if the tree was cut long ago , the dendrochronologists should be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old (Since dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years)

But what if only a part of horizontal cross section of the trunk was used in making the table ? If this is true, then dendrochronologists WON'T be able to determine the age .

Hope this helps!

Hi Skywalker18,
See.......craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old, not the wood used for table.

Now....suppose present age of the tree is 1002 years but the trunk , used for table, was cut 50 years ago...then how could dendrochronologists calculate the age of the tree by checking the table ???
Bu checking the table dendrochronologists would say the age of the tree is (1002-50)= 952 yrs, which is clearly wrong.
_________________
kudos please if it helped you.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 02:52
1
tamal99 wrote:
See.......craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old, not the wood used for table.

Now....suppose present age of the tree is 1002 years but the trunk , used for table, was cut 50 years ago...then how could dendrochronologists calculate the age of the tree by checking the table ???
Bu checking the table dendrochronologists would say the age of the tree is (1002-50)= 952 yrs, which is clearly wrong.

Hi tamal99,
The conclusion is the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
and NOT the tree is at least 1000 years old.
- Also, once a trunk of tree is cut , newer rings won't be added.

Hope this helps!
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 154
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 02:59
Hm....I was thinking in a wrong direction....thanks Skywalker18.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
kudos please if it helped you.
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1716
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2018, 19:01
1

Official Explanation

Premise #1: The number of rings on a tree determines the age of the tree

Premise #2: Using this fact, tree experts will be able to determine the age of the table.

Assumption: The table has to come from a cut of wood that actually has 1,000 rings. If the table comes from only a slice of wood, then it won’t contain all 1,000 rings. Remember, according to the prompt, the rings are contained in a horizontal cross section of the trunk. So if the width of the trunk is greater than the length of the table, then we cannot say for sure whether the wood used in table comes from a tree that is at least 1,000 years old.

This logic matches best with answer (D).

(A) is completely irrelevant since we are talking about other works of his. The only work that is in question is the table.

(B) is really misleading. The conclusion is that the tree experts can determine (yes/no) whether the tree is at least 1,000 years. If we negate the assumption in (B), the tree was less than 1,000 years old, then the tree experts will be able to definitively determine the tree’s age. That is consistent with the conclusion. Negating an assumption should result in the argument falling apart. That happens with (D), since if the table is not large enough to contain all the tree rings, then the experts won’t be able to determine whether the tree was at least 1,000 years old.

(C) doesn’t relate to the age of the tree.

(D) See above.

(E) is consistent with the prompt: dendrochronology is accurate only for trees less than 2,000 years old.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 172
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2019, 11:37
Hi everyone,

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

Pre-thinking:
The conclusion is about the accuracy of the age-determination.
Falsification scenario#1: If the tree is more than 2000 y old the result of the analysis will state that is less than 1000 y old
Assumption#1: if the tree is more than 2000 y old the results of the analysis will tell at least the tree is older than 1000 y

Falsification scenario 2: the dendrochronologists won't be able to perform their analysis only by examining the table
Assumption#2: the table is enough for a sufficient examination

A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.

C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.

Option d is in line with pre-thinking.
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1216
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2019, 22:15
If the tree isn't at least 1000 circles wide then we can already conclude that the table isn't >=1000 years old, so D must be true for the argument to hold.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if I have helped you
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th   [#permalink] 19 Sep 2019, 22:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by