It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 17:32

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the da

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 17 May 2017
Posts: 130

Kudos [?]: 122 [1], given: 178

GPA: 3
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the da [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2017, 07:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (02:05) correct 36% (02:37) wrong based on 120 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the date of the abandonment of the old city of Jericho. In the 1930s the site was excavated by the archaeologist John Garstang, who discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls, which he dated at about 1400 BC, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest, leading him to conclude that the city had fallen in war. In 1950, another archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, dated the most recent of Jericho's walls at 2300 BC. Kenyon found no evidence of defensive structures that could confirm Garstang's claims that Jericho had been destroyed by the Israelites in the 15th century BC. In fact, she concluded that Jericho had lain in ruins for centuries before the Israelites arrived.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best additional support for Garstang's theory about the date of the abandonment of Jericho?

A The oldest walls found at the site, along with a number of houses and courtyards, had been constructed over 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic age.

B An abundance of pottery located at the site coincides with other local pottery common to the 15 th century BC.

C The walls of Jericho had been repaired and rebuilt at least seventeen times, probably following damage caused by earthquakes.

D Carbon-14 testing of a sample of charcoal found on the site indicated a date of 1800 BC.

E Earlier archaeologists who hoped to confirm the biblical story of the Israelites' conquest of Jericho concluded that the city had been unoccupied at the time such conquest would have occurred.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 122 [1], given: 178

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Math Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4967

Kudos [?]: 5453 [2], given: 112

Re: An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the da [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2017, 07:55
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the date of the abandonment of the old city of Jericho. In the 1930s the site was excavated by the archaeologist John Garstang, who discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls, which he dated at about 1400 BC, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest, leading him to conclude that the city had fallen in war. In 1950, another archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, dated the most recent of Jericho's walls at 2300 BC. Kenyon found no evidence of defensive structures that could confirm Garstang's claims that Jericho had been destroyed by the Israelites in the 15th century BC. In fact, she concluded that Jericho had lain in ruins for centuries before the Israelites arrived.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best additional support for Garstang's theory about the date of the abandonment of Jericho?

A The oldest walls found at the site, along with a number of houses and courtyards, had been constructed over 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic age.
Out of scope

B An abundance of pottery located at the site coincides with other local pottery common to the 15 th century BC.
Since the pottery common to 15th century BC has been found at the site, it strengthens that the pottery was of 15 century BC and thus there was civilization in 15 century BC.. CORRECT

C The walls of Jericho had been repaired and rebuilt at least seventeen times, probably following damage caused by earthquakes.
Does not give any dates to these reconstruction

D Carbon-14 testing of a sample of charcoal found on the site indicated a date of 1800 BC.
Does not do much but weakens it slightly, if anything

E Earlier archaeologists who hoped to confirm the biblical story of the Israelites' conquest of Jericho concluded that the city had been unoccupied at the time such conquest would have occurred.
Again would weaken and not strengthen

B
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5453 [2], given: 112

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 68

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 166

Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 3
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the da [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2017, 10:49
Conc: there was no civilization at the time Israelis arrived.
+ B : Abundance of pottery similar to that of 15th century indicates that there had been a civilization at the time Israelis came.
Hence undermining Jerico's claim of city laid in ruin for centuries before Israelis arrived.
Correct me if my understanding of the argument is wrong.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When nothing seem to help, I would go and look at a Stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred time without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it would split in two.
And I knew it was not that blow that did it, But all that had gone Before
.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 166

Re: An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the da   [#permalink] 27 Sep 2017, 10:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

An ongoing archaeological controversy surrounds the question of the da

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.