An ancient palace in Mesopotamia was recently uncovered, revealing thr

Question

An ancient palace in Mesopotamia was recently uncovered, revealing three antechambers relatively undamaged. The heights of the doorways between the chambers were measured, and found to be on average no greater than 4.5 feet tall. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the chambers found were intended for children and young adults, and could very well have been used as a nursery.

Which of the following is NOT an assumption upon which the argument is based?

A The height of the doorways did not shrink significantly over time prior to the palace’s discovery.
B Ancient Mesopotamians were not a lot shorter, on average, than modern humans.
C The ancient Mesopotamians built doors to accommodate the people who would primarily occupy the rooms behind them.
D Ancient Mesopotamians were not generally taller than 5 feet at adult height.
E Human height in ancient times is comparable to modern human height.

girlfromspace · Answer

I chose B. Can someone explain why D is the correct answer?

mukul vaidya · Answer

Does the negation test works for option D? I guess not.

Posted from my mobile device

nicolakirwan · Answer

An ancient palace in Mesopotamia was recently uncovered, revealing three antechambers relatively undamaged. 
The heights of the doorways between the chambers were measured, and found to be on average no greater than 4.5 feet tall. 
 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the chambers found were  intended for children and young adults , and could very well have been used as a  nursery .

After a height of 4.5 feet is noted, the conclusion in italics and with bold phrasing demonstrates that the argument depends on certain assumptions about the height of the people who used the chambers. What do children, young adults and even babies have in common with respect to height? They are shorter than the typical adult.

If the argument concludes that a height of 4.5 ft indicates that the chambers were used by those who have not yet grown to a fully adult height, then it must include the assumption that ancient Mesopotamian adults weren't that short. And so:

Which of the following is  NOT  an assumption upon which the argument is based?  (Meaning that all of the options below  are , in fact, assumptions upon which the argument is based, except for one. It's a question of which one of these things doesn't belong.)

A) The height of the doorways did not shrink significantly over time prior to the palace’s discovery. |  The conclusion does not allow for the possibility of shrinking doorways. If the doorways did shrink over time, then that fact would undermine the conclusion by introducing an alternate theory. Therefore the conclusion rests in part upon assuming that the doorways did not shrink over time.

B) Ancient Mesopotamians were not a lot shorter, on average, than modern humans. |  Modern humans typically grow taller than 4.5 feet by adulthood. If Ancient Mesopotamians were shorter than modern humans (fully grown) then it would  not  be reasonable to conclude that a doorway height of 4.5 ft was for those who hadn't yet reached adult height. So B  is  an assumption which allows for the conclusion that children and young adults used the chambers rather than adults

C) The ancient Mesopotamians built doors to accommodate the people who would primarily occupy the rooms behind them. |  Yes, the conclusion presumes that the doors were build to accommodate the occupants of the chambers, since in observing doorway height, the conclusion speaks to whom the chambers were intended for.

D) Ancient Mesopotamians were not generally taller than 5 feet at adult height. |  If we assumed that Ancient Mesopotamians were not taller than 5 feet at adult height, then we would have to consider the possibility that the 4.5ft doorways were intended for adults. However, the conclusion does not provide for this possibility. Therefore, this is not a fact which is assumed by the argument. In fact, it would undermine the argument.

E) Human height in ancient times is comparable to modern human height. |  Very similar to B, but more general than Ancient Mesopotamia. If it were not assumed that height in ancient times was comparable to modern human height, we would have to consider the possibility that 4.5ft doors were used by fully grown adults, not just children and young adults.   The conclusion does not consider this possibility and therefore rests partially upon the assumption that human height in ancient times is comparable to modern human height.

I hope that makes sense...

gmatexam439 · Answer

An ancient palace in Mesopotamia was recently uncovered, revealing three antechambers relatively undamaged. The heights of the doorways between the chambers were measured, and found to be on average no greater than 4.5 feet tall. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the chambers found were intended for children and young adults, and could very well have been used as a nursery.

Which of the following is NOT an assumption upon which the argument is based?

A The height of the doorways did not shrink significantly over time prior to the palace’s discovery. - This is an assumption. If the doorways shrank then it means that the palace might have been built for adults. 
B Ancient Mesopotamians were not a lot shorter, on average, than modern humans. - This is an assumption. If they were shorter, then the palace's short doors might have been built for the adults. 
C The ancient Mesopotamians built doors to accommodate the people who would primarily occupy the rooms behind them. - This is an assumption. They built to accomodate the children. 
D Ancient Mesopotamians were not generally taller than 5 feet at adult height. - Correct. This is NOT an assumption. If the adults were short then the palace might have been built for adults, contrary to the conclusion. 
E Human height in ancient times is comparable to modern human height. - This is an assumption. The children of today can be compared with the children of that time as in the case of adults of today and of that time.

meghakayal16 · Answer

Hello Team,

Choice A says The height of the doorways DID NOT SHRINK SIGNIFICANTLY over time prior to palace's discovery.

Isn;t this mentioned already in the passage that the doorways were RELATIVELY UNDAMAGED that means they were in the same condition.

Hence, this is not a MUST BE TRUE Statement for an assumption. Therefore, would not this qualify as the correct answer?

An ancient palace in Mesopotamia was recently uncovered, revealing thr

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

An ancient palace in Mesopotamia was recently uncovered, revealing thr

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards