December 16, 2018 December 16, 2018 07:00 AM PST 09:00 AM PST Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score. December 16, 2018 December 16, 2018 03:00 PM EST 04:00 PM EST Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics
Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 51223

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Jun 2018, 22:58
Question Stats:
71% (01:44) correct 29% (02:02) wrong based on 370 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 crosssection 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.
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/ Login.
_________________
New to the Math Forum? Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread  All You Need for Quant  PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!! Resources: GMAT Math Book  Triangles  Polygons  Coordinate Geometry  Factorials  Circles  Number Theory  Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets  PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders  GMAT Prep Software Analysis  SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS)  Tricky questions from previous years.
Collection of Questions: PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.
What are GMAT Club Tests? Extrahard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics



Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 127
Location: India

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 30 Jun 2018, 23:30
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 crosssection 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 26 Jun 2018, 23:24.
Last edited by doomedcat on 30 Jun 2018, 23:30, edited 1 time in total.



Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2015
Posts: 241

Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jun 2018, 01:36
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: 491
Location: India
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, 02:00
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. Answer is D
_________________
My journey From 410 to 700 Here's my experience when I faced a glitch in my GMAT Exam Don't do this mistake when you give your GMATPrep Mock! NEW GMATPrep software analysis by Bunuel



Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2018
Posts: 36
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, 02:39
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.
The answer is D



Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2128
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
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, 07:38
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 crosssection 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 Answer D
_________________
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 +1 Kudos if you find this post helpful



Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 2

Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jun 2018, 00:38
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 crosssection 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
Answer D 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: 2128
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
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, 01:18
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 crosssection 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
Answer D 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 deviceHi 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 +1 Kudos if you find this post helpful



Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 123

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: 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 crosssection 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
Answer D 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 deviceHi 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 (100250)= 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: 2128
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
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, 01:52
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 (100250)= 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 +1 Kudos if you find this post helpful



Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 123

Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jun 2018, 01:59
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: 1558

Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th
[#permalink]
Show Tags
15 Aug 2018, 18:01
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.”
Want to improve your Score: GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1 GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2  How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51
My Notes: Reading comprehension  Critical Reasoning  Absolute Phrases  Subjunctive Mood




Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a th &nbs
[#permalink]
15 Aug 2018, 18:01






