Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 May 2012
Affiliations: UWC
Posts: 309
Given Kudos: 100
Location: Canada
Schools: Rotman '15 (A) Schulich '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE:Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in
[#permalink]
Updated on: 12 Jun 2024, 00:47
Updated on: 12 Jun 2024, 00:47
36
Bookmarks
Show timer
00:00
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
54% (02:16) correct
46%
(02:43)
wrong
based on 530
sessions
Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in eighteenth-century Britain, among them Bristol, Plymouth, and New Hall. Each center developed a unique recipe for its porcelain that might include flint glass, soapstone, bone ash, clay, quartz, and so on. We will therefore be able to determine, on the basis of compositional analysis, where the next cup we recover from this archaeological site was made.
Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the archaeologist's argument and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would, provide significant logical support for the required assumption.
Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the archaeologist's argument and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would, provide significant logical support for the required assumption.
ID: 100399
|
Assumption required |
Possible fact |
|
| Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain. | ||
| Some of the cups recovered from the archeological site were not made of porcelain. | ||
| The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain. | ||
| Porcelain makers often traveled between centers, experimeriting with one another's recipes. | ||
| There was considerable overlap of materials in the recipes used by the various centers. | ||
| Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Assumption
required: The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain. Possible
fact: Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain.
required: The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain. Possible
fact: Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain.
Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 131
Given Kudos: 13
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.69
WE:Analyst (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in
[#permalink]
07 Jun 2012, 07:46
07 Jun 2012, 07:46
8
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Here's how I approached it:
First, a two second summary of archaeologist claim: Because porcelain cups have unique compositions, archaeologists can use composition analysis to determine where the next discovered cup comes from.
So looking at the statements, I try to eliminate the statements that do not support the archaeologist's claim:
a) RELEVANT: Says that they have previous porcelain cups, so these are the cups that they could use for their composition analysis
b) ELIMINATE: Cups that are not made of porcelain do not support his claim
c) RELEVANT: The next cup has to be porcelain, archaeologist only talks about identifying cups that are porcelain
d) ELIMINATE: Hurts archaeologist claim because it introduces reasoning to why composition analysis might not lead to correct origin of cup
e) ELIMINATE: Hurts archaeologist claim because composition analysis might not point to correct origin if two origins produce the same type of composition
f) ELIMINATE: Seems like irrelevant information
So between A and C, it's not too hard to tell which one is the archaeologist assumptions and which one is possible fact. The archaeologist is assuming that they can find out where the next cup comes from because the next cup will be porcelain, and they can use composition analysis. The fact that all of the cups they have previously found were porcelain strengthens the assumption that the next one will be porcelain as well.
If you reversed it, and said that the assumption is all of the past cups found were porcelain, the possible fact that the next one will be porcelain does nothing to strengthen your assumption.
First, a two second summary of archaeologist claim: Because porcelain cups have unique compositions, archaeologists can use composition analysis to determine where the next discovered cup comes from.
So looking at the statements, I try to eliminate the statements that do not support the archaeologist's claim:
a) RELEVANT: Says that they have previous porcelain cups, so these are the cups that they could use for their composition analysis
b) ELIMINATE: Cups that are not made of porcelain do not support his claim
c) RELEVANT: The next cup has to be porcelain, archaeologist only talks about identifying cups that are porcelain
d) ELIMINATE: Hurts archaeologist claim because it introduces reasoning to why composition analysis might not lead to correct origin of cup
e) ELIMINATE: Hurts archaeologist claim because composition analysis might not point to correct origin if two origins produce the same type of composition
f) ELIMINATE: Seems like irrelevant information
So between A and C, it's not too hard to tell which one is the archaeologist assumptions and which one is possible fact. The archaeologist is assuming that they can find out where the next cup comes from because the next cup will be porcelain, and they can use composition analysis. The fact that all of the cups they have previously found were porcelain strengthens the assumption that the next one will be porcelain as well.
If you reversed it, and said that the assumption is all of the past cups found were porcelain, the possible fact that the next one will be porcelain does nothing to strengthen your assumption.
General Discussion
VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1001
Given Kudos: 116
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in
[#permalink]
04 Oct 2012, 04:30
04 Oct 2012, 04:30
1
Kudos
The question seems quite straightforward.
Conclusion is that the origin of the next cup discovered can be easily determined.
Going through the answer choices we can find that the argument clearly assumes that the next cup to be discovered would be made of porcelain. Although we can also apply the LEN method : The next cup to be discovered need not be porcelain. This clearly kills the argument. So "C" is the right answer.
Now we have to select a choice which as a fact could strengthen the assumption. We can see that choice "A" clearly strengthens this assumption.
Conclusion is that the origin of the next cup discovered can be easily determined.
Going through the answer choices we can find that the argument clearly assumes that the next cup to be discovered would be made of porcelain. Although we can also apply the LEN method : The next cup to be discovered need not be porcelain. This clearly kills the argument. So "C" is the right answer.
Now we have to select a choice which as a fact could strengthen the assumption. We can see that choice "A" clearly strengthens this assumption.
