An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites

Question

An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites—Barras, Agna, and Cussaia—looking in particular at kitchen waste dumps as a way to understand the villages' dietary patterns and trading relationships. What follows are brief summaries of their findings.

Barras: The best data come from stratified finds in this oceanside village, which was inhabited from AD 600 to 1300 and was the only one of the three villages to produce seafood, its main dietary item. Though Barras residents hunted on land and raised crops, this provided relatively small amounts of food. As Barras's overall prosperity rose, there was more food available per person, and its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s to 400 residents in the AD 1000s to 600 residents in the AD 1200s.

Agna: Agna was established in an inland forest around AD 800 and its residents mainly hunted but also ate considerable amounts of fruit, nuts, and other forest-vegetable products. They also traded meat to Barras for other goods. With no open fields, Agna grew no grain.

Cussaia: Predating Barras, Cussaia depended heavily on raising grain crops and eventually obtained seafood and meat via trade. It traded directly only with Barras, because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras.

Additionally, there is no evidence that any other village traded with Barras, Agna, or Cussaia prior to AD 1300.

Attachment:

Picture2.png [ 420.98 KiB | Viewed 20615 times ]

I have attached a question from GMAT prep on IR.
I have answered the question. I feel that those answers are correct because that information is given in the passage. But official answers are different

Can somebody explain why my answers are wrong?

anairamitch1804 · Accepted Answer

The question asks whether it is supported by each of the two tables. i.e. The statement should be supported by Table 1 AND Table 2. Even if one of the tables does not support the statement, the answer is No. This is analogous to the Logical AND function.

Questions/Statements in the red box, let’s consider them Stmt1, Stmt2, Stmt3.

Statement is SEPERATELY supported by the passage - 
Stmt1 -Yes (Read the last line about Barras)
Stmt2 -Yes (Read the last line about Agna)
Stmt3 -Yes (Read the last line about Cussia)

Statement is SEPERATELY supported by each of the 2 tables - 
Stmt1 - No (Becasue no data available)
Stmt2 -No (Becasue no data available)
Stmt3 -No (Becasue no data available)

Clubbing them together for final answer - 
Stmt1 -No 
Stmt2 -No 
Stmt3 -No

victorviene · Answer

Your reasoning is prfectly OK, but the trick here is how to use the 2 tables together to solve the problem. Notice that seafood consumption percentage remains the same from 600s to700s (65%), and its actual consumed amount arised from 240 to 250 (a bit more). In other words, the total amout of food consume must have increased too. So, grain consumption actually has in increase of at least 50% (from 10% of x to 15% of y, while y is bigger than x).

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

Question #1 
Assume that any increase of 5% or more from one century to the next in the amount of a given food consumed by Barras residents is due primarily to a corresponding increase in imports of that food into Barras from other villages. Given this assumption and the information provided, for each of the following, select Yes if it describes a food likely imported by Barras during times of increased food consumption. Otherwise select No.

The passage on the Village Sites tab says Agna was not established until around AD 800. Therefore, Barras could not have imported meat from Agna in the AD 600s.

The correct answer is No.

The table on the Food Consumption tab shows that per-capita amount of meat consumed in Barras more than doubled from 70 pounds per 4-person family in the AD 800s to 172 pounds per 4-person family in the AD 900s. The passage on the Village Sites tab suggests that Agna and Cussaia were likely the only villages trading with Barras. It also says that Agna traded meat to Barras and suggests that Cussaia probably did not. Therefore, given the assumption that any increase of 5% or more in the amount of a given food consumed by Barras's residents was primarily the result of a corresponding increase in imports of that food into Barras from other villages, Barras probably imported meat from Agna during the AD 900s.

The correct answer is Yes.

The table on the Food Variety tab shows that the amount of grain consumed per capita as a percent of the total amount of food consumed per-capita in Barras increased from 10% in the AD 600s to 15% in the AD 700s. To determine whether this percent increase corresponds to an increase of 5% or more in the amount of grain consumed, we can use the information provided about seafood consumed per capita. The table on the Food Variety tab shows that seafood constituted 65% of the total amount of food consumed per capita in Barras for both the AD 600s and the AD 700s. The Food Consumption tab shows that the amount of seafood consumed per capita increased from 60 pounds (240/4) in the AD 600s to 62.5 pounds (250/4) in the AD 700s. Therefore, the total amount of food consumed per capita in Barras was 60/0.65 (approximately 92) pounds in the AD 600s and 62.5/0.65 (approximately 96) pounds in the AD 700s, and so the approximate amount of grain consumed per capita in Barras was (0.10)(92) = 9.2 pounds in the AD 600s and (0.15)(96) = 14.4 pounds in the AD 700s, for an increase of approximately 14.4 − 9.2 = 5.2 pounds; an increase of greater than 50%.

The preceding shows that the period from the AD 600s through the AD 700s was indeed a time of increased food consumption (particularly with respect to grain), and the passage on the Village Sites tab indicates that Agna and Cussaia were likely the only villages trading with Barras. Agna did not exist until around AD 800, but Cussaia predated Agna and depended heavily on raising grain crops, which it could have exported to Barras. Given the assumption that any increase of 5% or more in the amount of a given food consumed by Barras's residents was primarily the result of a corresponding increase in imports of that food into Barras from other villages—Barras likely imported grain from Cussaia during the AD 700s.

The correct answer is Yes.

Question #2 
For each of the following, select Yes if the statement is separately supported by the passage and separately supported by each of the two tables. Otherwise select No.

Although the passage on the Village Sites tab says that Barras's population increased from the AD 600s to the AD 1200s, and the tables on the Food Variety and Food Consumption tabs both imply that Barras was inhabited throughout this period, neither table alone says or implies anything about whether Barras's population increased or decreased.

The correct answer is No.

The passage says that Agna grew no grain, but the table on the Food Variety tab does not mention Agna at all, and the table on the Food Consumption tab does not mention grain at all.

The correct answer is No.

The passage on the Village Sites tab supports the statement that Cussaia traded directly only with Barras, but neither table mentions Cussaia at all.

The correct answer is No.

arichinna · Answer

Hi,

Please use table 2. The question is demanding us to assume 5% or more of a given food item. From AD 600 to AD 700, the proportion of grains increased from 10% to 15%. Here the overall consumption of a given food should be considered and not the overall food consumption increase.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Ari

ronr34 · Answer

An additional question that I am inserting here due to the fact that the tables are already here:

and the correct is in a square, mine are in the circle

lucky1829 · Answer

Again a question regarding the "grains from cassia from 600 to 700"

The question states: "Assume that any increase of 5% or more from one century to the next in the AMOUNT..."

Tab 2 gives us information about the "percentages, by estimated weight, of dietary items consumed per person"
We see an increase of 5% of grain. However, tab 2 gives us only information about the composition of the dietary in each century and not about the consumed amount. Isn't it possible that the overall consumed amount was reduced and the amount of grain consumption did not increase by 5%? Therefore, the event in the question stem would not hold in this scenario.

Am I flawed in my thinking process?

amihira · Answer

1) Refer Village Site: Barras: "Its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s to 400 residents in the AD 1000s to 600 residents in the AD 1200S" So from above statement answer for question 1 is YES. :lol:

2) Refer Village Site: Agna: "Agna grew no grain." So from above statement answer for question 2 is YES. :lol:

3) Refer Village Site: Cussaia: "It taded directlly only with Barras" So from above statement answer for question 2 is YES. :lol:

Hope you get your answers.......

kham71 · Answer

Monthly meat consumption for a family of 4 in AD 1000 = 160 lb
Residents in AD 1000 = 400, ~100 families of 4. 
100 * 160 lb = 16,000

By a similar logic, in AD 1200 pounds consumed would be 24,000

Assuming a linear increase, the number in AD 1100 would BE 20,000 and the average in the 1000s would be 18,000.

Can you assume a linear increase? not sure, but it's definitely > 16,000

abhimahna · Answer

Number of residents in Baras in 1000 ADs =400.

=> on average for a 4 person family, we have 100 families.

Now we are given that 160 lbs is the average meat consumption of a 4 person family in 1000 ADs.

Thus, Average total meat consumption = 100 * 160=16000. Hence, Answer is C.

geek_mnnit · Answer

Hi can anyone please post explanation for question 3 of this MSR. why all the answers are NO? I am getting all as yes all of them are supported by passage individually!

abhimahna · Answer

Question no. 3 says we need to select yes ONLY IF we have the below information supported by each of the three tabs.

But, you can see that it is not a valid case for any of the three points provided. Hence, Answer is No for all.

geek_mnnit · Answer

Yeah we have to somehow justify OA but thats a very lame way of tricking people even though I read the stem properly was still in doubt what the hell it meant! supported by each of oh wait a min supported by EACH wtf!

abhimahna · Answer

No, we are not justifying the answer somehow. This is how GMAC works. GMAC people know that many people are going to miss the word each and gonna mark the wrong answer.

sourabhdhingra · Answer

The main reason why people select no for this question is because they are not sure whether Cussaia grew grain or not. Now there are 2 things to notice:

1. Assumption - any 5% increase in food is likely due to an increase in import - that implies any food whose consumption has increased is not self grown.
2. If grain's consumption is increased then it must have been imported from either Agna or Cussia. if you think you cannot tell from whom import has been made then you would answer this as NO. But in the first table we are told that Agna grew no grain.

Hence this information - Agna grew no grain -- combined with the specified assumption tells us that import has been made from Cussia.

CHSmithson · Answer

For the 2nd set of questions that someone posted about:

The question asks: which statements are supported by the passage AND SEPARATELY supported by EACH of the two tables.

The passage clearly supports the 3 statements, so "yes", BUT the tables on the subsequent 2 tabs do NOT mention anything about the statements. Therefore, all 3 statements are "No".

anairamitch1804 · Answer

Based on the information in the passage and tables, it can be determined that the average monthly meat consumption, In pounds, by the residents of Barras in the AD 1000s was which one of the following?

9,600
 10,000
 16,000
 17,400
 18,000

Both tables (in tabs 2 and 3) talk about Barras and meat consumption, but this question asks about pounds—that sends us to tab 3.

Read the key up at top. The table shows average monthly meat consumption (good, that’s what we want!) in pounds for a 4-person family. We want pounds. Do we want a 4-person family?

Nope. The question asks about the total consumption in pounds for the residents of Barras. We’re going to need to do a little calculating here.

In the 1000s, Barras’s average monthly consumption per 4-person family was 160 pounds. Per person, then, consumption was 160 /4 = 40 pounds. Hmm, now what?

We need to know the total number of residents in Barras in the 1000s. Where did they tell us that?

Right! Tab 1 gave some information about population at the end of the paragraph about Barras. The passage says that there were 400 residents, on average, in the AD 1000s.

400 residents multiplied by 40 pounds per resident is a total of 16,000 pounds.

The correct answer is (C).

unebaguette · Answer

In the following attachments are the given topic, where all of the questions are answered verbatim, and the questions, and two graphs:

The first statement question:
"Barras’s population increased from the AD 600s to 1200s."
The final sentence of the Barras paragraph:
"As Barras’s overall prosperity rose, there was more food available per person, and  its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s  to 400 residents in the AD 1000s  to 600 residents in the AD 1200s ."

The second statement question:
"Agna grew no grain."
The final sentence of the paragraph on Agna:
"With no open fields,  Agna grew no grain ."

Third statement question: 
"Cussaia traded directly only with Barra"
Second sentence of the paragraph on Cussaia:
" It traded directly only with Barras , because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras."

Please tell me why all the answers are not supported by the passage when they literally are stated as such

moul · Answer

An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites—Barras, Agna, and Cussaia—looking in particular at kitchen waste dumps as a way to understand the villages' dietary patterns and trading relationships. What follows are brief summaries of their findings.

Barras: The best data come from stratified finds in this oceanside village, which was inhabited from AD 600 to 1300 and was the only one of the three villages to produce seafood, its main dietary item. Though Barras residents hunted on land and raised crops, this provided relatively small amounts of food. As Barras's overall prosperity rose, there was more food available per person, and its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s to 400 residents in the AD 1000s to 600 residents in the AD 1200s.

Agna: Agna was established in an inland forest around AD 800 and its residents mainly hunted but also ate considerable amounts of fruit, nuts, and other forest-vegetable products. They also traded meat to Barras for other goods. With no open fields, Agna grew no grain.

Cussaia: Predating Barras, Cussaia depended heavily on raising grain crops and eventually obtained seafood and meat via trade. It traded directly only with Barras, because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras.

Additionally, there is no evidence that any other village traded with Barras, Agna, or Cussaia prior to AD 1300.

Attachment:

Picture2.png [ 420.98 KiB | Viewed 20615 times ]

I have attached a question from GMAT prep on IR.
I have answered the question. I feel that those answers are correct because that information is given in the passage. But official answers are different

Can somebody explain why my answers are wrong?

AndrewN · Answer

unebaguette  - I understand exactly how you could miss this question, for the answer has to do with a careful reading of the question itself:

"For each of the following, select  Yes   if the statement is  separately  supported by  each  of the two tables " (my emphases).

Of course, you cannot tell that the population of Barras increased from any period of time to another by looking at a table of Dietary Items Consumed per Person; neither can you tell what Agna may or may not have grown from the same table, or anything about the trading habits of Cussaia. This is nothing more than a  trick question , the kind that you have to stumble into at first when practicing GMAT™ questions to grow really wary of all (or at least most) of the test's traps. Had the question been phased as an "either/or" statement instead, as in, "For each... if the statement is supported by either the tables or the statements," then you would, of course, have answered the question correctly. Be careful.  Make sure you answer the question being asked , especially on these three-part IR questions, in which complete confidence in your answers can lead you down a slippery slope.

If this explanation does not make sense, then please let me know, and I would be happy to discuss the matter further. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Yes	No
		Meat from Agna from the AD 500s to the AD 600s
		Meat from Agna from the AD 800s to the AD 900s
		Grain from Cussaia from the AD 600s to the AD 700s

An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites

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

Yes	No
		Barras's population increased from the AD 600s to 1200s
		Agna grew no grain.
		Cussaia traded directly only with Barras.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites

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