GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 07 Dec 2019, 02:02

### 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

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

# Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Argentina
Schools: HBS, Stanford, Wharton
GMAT 1: 630 Q43 V34
Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2019, 14:14
1
1
3
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (02:39) correct 62% (02:09) wrong based on 66 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient city now flooded by the runoff from Turkey’s Birecik Dam, should have been left there. We had all the information about them that we needed to draw archaeological conclusions, and future archaeologists studying the site, who may not have access to our records, might be misled by their absence.

Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist’s argument?
(A) The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological.
(B) Archaeologists studying a site can tell whether or not that site had been flooded at some time.
(C) The materials used in the construction of a mosaic are readily apparent when the mosaic is examined in its original location.
(D) Archaeological sites from which artifacts have been removed rarely mislead archaeologists who later study the site.
(E) The removal of artifacts from archaeological sites rarely has any environmental impact.

_________________
The HARDER you work, the LUCKIER you get.
Intern
Joined: 21 Apr 2014
Posts: 32
Re: Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2019, 15:46
This question is unusual in that the Conclusion comes first, followed by the Evidence. That's probably because it's an LSAT question, but occasionally we see this on the GMAT as well. I'm going to focus on the Evidence first:

Evidence:
-we have all info on M for archaeology
-future A's might not have access to our records & be confused is M are gone

Conclusion:
-M should have been left in situ

Concept Shift:
-Even though the Conclusion comes first, I still find the evidence doesn't do a good job justifying WHY they should have been left, given that there's run-off. It seems like run-off would be a BAD thing for these mosaics!

The author is saying we need to leave the mosaics for the future archaeologists to study in case they don't have our records, so the author is clearly assuming the mosaics would still be there for the future archaeologists if we put them back/left them there.

I like the word "justify" in the question-stem here. It always makes me think, "which of the following makes the author seem less crazy?"

If the idea of "now flooded by the runoff from Turkey’s Birecik Dam" is NOT going to be part of the scope of the correct answer, then why is this detail even included? It would seem so odd.

Prediction: Something that explains WHY they should have been left there, even with the run-off/flooding.

On to the answer choices:

(A) The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological. (it's sort of on topic, so we can keep...for now)
(B) Archaeologists studying a site can tell whether or not that site had been flooded at some time. (we don't know how this relates to why they should have been left there)
(C) The materials used in the construction of a mosaic are readily apparent when the mosaic is examined in its original location. (how they were constructed is not part of the argument)
(D) Archaeological sites from which artifacts have been removed rarely mislead archaeologists who later study the site. (on track, let's keep)
(E) The removal of artifacts from archaeological sites rarely has any environmental impact. (environmental impact is totally outside the scope)

Let's focus on the only two that seem to be on track:

(A) The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological.
(D) Archaeological sites from which artifacts have been removed rarely mislead archaeologists who later study the site.

Let's negate each one:

(A) Archaeological considerations are NOT the ONLY point of consideration.
(D) Removing mosaics WOULD mislead archaeologists.

The negation of (D) seems to SUPPORT the conclusion, saying yeah, we shouldn't have removed them! It basically reiterates the evidence.

With (A), it's like saying, "there's other things we should consider." Well, if there are other points to consider other than archaeological ones, then it definitely hurts the conclusion since the entire conclusion's evidence is based on archaeology. Perhaps those other considerations would have something to do with the flooding??

I'll be honest, I don't LOVE (A) as an answer to an Assumption question but the keyword "justify" sort of makes this one a bit like a Strengthen question. Hopefully, we can see here that (A) is just miles ahead of the other answer choices. We don't need a "perfect" answer; we just need one that "beats" the other four!
_________________
Vivian Kerr | GMAT/GRE Tutor @ http://www.gmatrockstar.com | gmatrockstar[at]gmail.com | solid 5-star reviews on Yelp!

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor. I've freelanced with Veritas Prep, Magoosh, and most of the bigger test prep companies. Now offering Skype-based private tutoring for the GMAT and GRE.

Reading Comprehension is my jam!
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 865
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2019, 13:45
patto, same thing with this question. Please correct your questions.

GMATRockstar, thank you for taking time to answer this question. The reason, as you identified, that this question is a little weird is because it is a sufficient assumption question, not a necessary assumption question. The former appears on the LSAT, but not on the GMAT. It is more in line, as you described, with a bridge the gap question.

Once more, negation does NOT work on sufficient assumption because the assumption is NOT 100% NEEDED to make the answer correct. This is a key difference and should be recognized. For those who have struggled with LSAT assumption questions, do not feel discouraged; this is probably why you haven't understood the reasoning/answer. If more of these are around, please tag me in them and I will correct them.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Need an expert to grade your AWA? Go: Here
Want to know your Business School chances? Go: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient   [#permalink] 02 Apr 2019, 13:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient

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

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