Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 26 Sep 2026, 22:33 |
It is currently 26 Sep 2026, 22:33 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
Oct 0301:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Saturdays Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
21 Jan 2020, 07:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
73% (01:47) correct
27%
(01:55)
wrong
based on 531
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
An ancient Pavonian text describes how an army of one million enemies of Pavonia stopped to drink at a certain lake and drank the lake dry. Recently, archaeologists discovered that water-based life was suddenly absent just after the event was alleged by the text to have occurred. On the basis of reading the text and an account of the archaeological evidence, some students concluded that the events described really took place.
Which one of the following is a questionable technique used by the students to reach their conclusion?
(A) making a generalization about historical events on the basis of a single instance of that type of event
(B) ignoring available, potentially useful counterevidence
(C) rejecting a hypothesis because it is seemingly self-contradictory
(D) considering people and locations whose existence cannot be substantiated by modern historians
(E) taking evidence that a text has correctly described an effect to show that the text has correctly described the cause
Which one of the following is a questionable technique used by the students to reach their conclusion?
(A) making a generalization about historical events on the basis of a single instance of that type of event
(B) ignoring available, potentially useful counterevidence
(C) rejecting a hypothesis because it is seemingly self-contradictory
(D) considering people and locations whose existence cannot be substantiated by modern historians
(E) taking evidence that a text has correctly described an effect to show that the text has correctly described the cause
01 Mar 2020, 11:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO, this is a case of the ‘best’ answer among the five through POE. However, there’s a typo in choice E which is the answer.
Choice A: The students aren’t making generalizations on similar events in history based on that single event. Incorrect.
Choice B: No counterevidence has been given in the passage.
Choice C: No self-contradiction in the passage.
Choice D: Irrelevant. The passage is not about the merits or demerits of archaeology as a science.
Choice E: This is the best and closest answer. The students refer to the text as one of the means of arriving at their conclusion. This is questionable as we are not told whether the students ascertained the veracity of the text. However, there is a lexical error in the passage. In addition, I consider this a weak answer though it is the best answer.
Am I correct?
Choice A: The students aren’t making generalizations on similar events in history based on that single event. Incorrect.
Choice B: No counterevidence has been given in the passage.
Choice C: No self-contradiction in the passage.
Choice D: Irrelevant. The passage is not about the merits or demerits of archaeology as a science.
Choice E: This is the best and closest answer. The students refer to the text as one of the means of arriving at their conclusion. This is questionable as we are not told whether the students ascertained the veracity of the text. However, there is a lexical error in the passage. In addition, I consider this a weak answer though it is the best answer.
Am I correct?
01 Mar 2020, 21:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
I don’t like this question. It didn’t ‘feel’ like a GMAT question. It turns out it probably is an LSAT or 3rd party created one. In any event, I did manage to get it correct, right on the average time everyone else did. Anyway let’s try to break this down.
Reading the passage we are basically told about how an ancient army maybe went to a lake and drank it dry. We are then told about how some archaeologists discovered that all the water-based life was suddenly absent after the alleged incident. We finally hear about how students have linked the two and conclude that the army existed and did what it did.
What questionable technique was used by the students in coming to that conclusion? Frankly, I’m not familiar with this type of terminology. I guess this is similar to an assumption question.
To the answer choices.
An ancient Pavonian text describes how an army of one million enemies of Pavonia stopped to drink at a certain lake and drank the lake dry. Recently, archaeologists discovered that water-based life was suddenly absent just after the event was alleged by the text to have occurred. On the basis of reading the text and an account of the archaeological evidence, some students concluded that the events described really took place.
Which one of the following is a questionable technique used by the students to reach their conclusion?
(A) making a generalization about historical events on the basis of a single instance of that type of event
The students didn't generalize about historical events. They were pretty specific. The army existed, went to the lake, and drank it dry. They say that the events described really took place. Not a generalization. Eliminate
(B) ignoring available, potentially useful counter evidence
Hmmm. You might want to yellow flag this. I’m too unfamiliar with the “questionable technique” term to knock this answer choice off. For all I know the student’s technique may have been QUESTIONABLE since it only took pieces of evidence that supported one view.
(C) rejecting a hypothesis because it is seemingly self-contradictory
This seems like a freebie elimination. There is nothing about a hypothesis being rejected, much less one that it is seemingly self-contradictory.
(D) considering people and locations whose existence cannot be substantiated by modern historians
Freebie elimination. Feels like an out of bounds answer choice. Neither the people nor the location is at issue in this passage. The only issue is whether the events that took place when they did and HOW they did.
(E) taking evidence that a text has correctly described an effect to show that the text has correctly described the cause
I think this question may not have been transcribed correctly. I can’t recall why I chose this fully. It probably wasn't a great reason. But I'm sure some of you can see that it is effectively linking a back-to-front cause-and-effect analogy. --- You see the after effects of something (the dry lake) and assume that the army drank it dry (cause). I guess the answer choice is trying to say that there could be any number of reasons for the lake to become dry. How could you or the student simply assume that it was because the army drank it dry. Maybe a travelling circus drank it dry! Frankly, I don’t like this answer choice. But I guess that the LSAT is about proper lawyer behavior. The idea of quickly linking a piece of evidence with an alleged description of events may be a bit hasty in that world.
Reading the passage we are basically told about how an ancient army maybe went to a lake and drank it dry. We are then told about how some archaeologists discovered that all the water-based life was suddenly absent after the alleged incident. We finally hear about how students have linked the two and conclude that the army existed and did what it did.
What questionable technique was used by the students in coming to that conclusion? Frankly, I’m not familiar with this type of terminology. I guess this is similar to an assumption question.
To the answer choices.
An ancient Pavonian text describes how an army of one million enemies of Pavonia stopped to drink at a certain lake and drank the lake dry. Recently, archaeologists discovered that water-based life was suddenly absent just after the event was alleged by the text to have occurred. On the basis of reading the text and an account of the archaeological evidence, some students concluded that the events described really took place.
Which one of the following is a questionable technique used by the students to reach their conclusion?
(A) making a generalization about historical events on the basis of a single instance of that type of event
The students didn't generalize about historical events. They were pretty specific. The army existed, went to the lake, and drank it dry. They say that the events described really took place. Not a generalization. Eliminate
(B) ignoring available, potentially useful counter evidence
Hmmm. You might want to yellow flag this. I’m too unfamiliar with the “questionable technique” term to knock this answer choice off. For all I know the student’s technique may have been QUESTIONABLE since it only took pieces of evidence that supported one view.
(C) rejecting a hypothesis because it is seemingly self-contradictory
This seems like a freebie elimination. There is nothing about a hypothesis being rejected, much less one that it is seemingly self-contradictory.
(D) considering people and locations whose existence cannot be substantiated by modern historians
Freebie elimination. Feels like an out of bounds answer choice. Neither the people nor the location is at issue in this passage. The only issue is whether the events that took place when they did and HOW they did.
(E) taking evidence that a text has correctly described an effect to show that the text has correctly described the cause
I think this question may not have been transcribed correctly. I can’t recall why I chose this fully. It probably wasn't a great reason. But I'm sure some of you can see that it is effectively linking a back-to-front cause-and-effect analogy. --- You see the after effects of something (the dry lake) and assume that the army drank it dry (cause). I guess the answer choice is trying to say that there could be any number of reasons for the lake to become dry. How could you or the student simply assume that it was because the army drank it dry. Maybe a travelling circus drank it dry! Frankly, I don’t like this answer choice. But I guess that the LSAT is about proper lawyer behavior. The idea of quickly linking a piece of evidence with an alleged description of events may be a bit hasty in that world.
mykrasovski
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Last visit: 17 Apr 2022
Posts: 339
Given Kudos: 253
Location: United States
Schools: Tuck '22 (M) Kellogg '22 (D)
WE:General Management (Other)
14 Mar 2020, 17:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
We need to find a flaw in the argument.
Premise 1: the army drunk the lake.
Premise 2: all creatures that lived in the lake vanished.
Conclusion: students alleged that the events actually occurred.
There is an immediate problem in the argument. The author suggests that the army drunk the lake and then the creatures that lived in the lake disappeared. Well, is that a sound argument? Not really. Did the army drink the entire lake? Even if that is the case, maybe something else caused all creatures to vanish. So, the argument is completely untenable. One can anticipate that the correct answer choice should address the causality issue (army drunk lake --> no organisms in the empty lake).
Option (E) is the best answer choice.
Premise 1: the army drunk the lake.
Premise 2: all creatures that lived in the lake vanished.
Conclusion: students alleged that the events actually occurred.
There is an immediate problem in the argument. The author suggests that the army drunk the lake and then the creatures that lived in the lake disappeared. Well, is that a sound argument? Not really. Did the army drink the entire lake? Even if that is the case, maybe something else caused all creatures to vanish. So, the argument is completely untenable. One can anticipate that the correct answer choice should address the causality issue (army drunk lake --> no organisms in the empty lake).
Option (E) is the best answer choice.
