Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in

Question

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.

ID: 100399

Swoosh617 · Accepted Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

There were many porcelain-production centers in 18th-century Britain.
Each center developed a unique recipe for its porcelain.

Conclusion: 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.

The conclusion is talking about being able to figure out the source of the next cup that is recovered, mind you, not the next porcelain cup but the next cup. What is the assumption here? The gap? That the cup we recover will be a porcelain cup. The premises only talk about porcelain at these centres.

Hence look for the assumption first. Only once you find will you find what strengthens it. 
Third option works: The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain.

Why is the last option not valid: Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers.
Negation: Less than 50% porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers.

Ok, even if less than 50% of porcelain was made at one these centres, it is will possible that the cup we recover next, if made of porcelain, was made at one of these centres. So our conclusion doesn't fall.

Hence,
 ASSUMPTION:   The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain.

What makes it more likely that the next cup to be recovered will be made of porcelain?

POSSIBLE FACT:   Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain.

If we have already got other cups and they were all made of porcelain, then it is likely that the next cup will also be made of porcelain.

MacFauz · Answer

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.

bangu · Answer

Fact 1: 18th-century Britain had several porcelain-production centers.
Fact 2: Each center developed a unique recipe for its porcelain.
Fact 3: There is an archaeological site.
Assumption: They will be able to recover cup from this archaeological site.
Assumption: Cup from this archaeological site will be made in Britain.

A: Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain.
Cannot be inferred from above facts or assumption.

B:Some of the cups recovered from the archaeological site were not made of porcelain.
Cannot be inferred from above facts or assumption.

C:The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be maid of porcelain.
Cannot be inferred from above facts or assumption.

D:Porcelain makers often traveled between centers, experimenting with one another's recipes.
Cannot be inferred from above facts or assumption.

E:There was considerable overlap of materials in the recipes used by the various centers.
Cannot be inferred from above facts or assumption.

F:Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers.
Can we inferred from Fact 1, although word Most is bit of a stretch.

gvij2017 · Answer

C:The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain.: Possible fact to support assumption 
F:Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers.: Assumption.

Am I correct?

swe_anon · Answer

GMATNinja  
Any idea why the last statement isn't a possible fact? I reasoned that it would help if we knew that most porcelain was indeed made at one of the several centers. Otherwise, the porcelain recovered at the archaeological site could have been made by an independent artisan, in another country, etc.

egmat · Answer

Hi,
Let me try to help.

The questions asks us to
 
 identify an assumption required by the archaeologist's argument 
 identify a possible fact that, if true, would, provide significant logical support for the required assumption.  
 So, the correct answer to #2 needs to support the assumption you have identified in #1.

Clearly, there is no statement that acts as an assumption and can be supported by the last statement. Hence, it cannot be the correct answer for "Possible fact".

Hope that helps,
Happy learning!

GMATNinja · Answer

Looks like  egmat  beat us to the punch, but their response is spot-on. We're looking for something that provides support for the assumption -- something that gives us reason to believe that the next cup to be recovered from the site will, in fact, be made of porcelain.

And that's exactly what we get in the first option: if all of the cups so far have been made of porcelain, we have reason to believe that the next one will be porcelain too.

The final option might support the ARGUMENT, but that's not quite what we're looking for here.

I hope that helps!

Dwadesh72 · Answer

Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers.

I know C fits better as an assumption but wanted to know, on what basis can we eliminate the above option ? Because if we negate it it will say that- most porcelain in 18th century Britain was  not  made at one of the several centres. Which would render the conclusion invalid as we wont be able to determine that where the cup was made ?

KarishmaB   chetan2u   GMATNinja   egmat .

chetan2u · Answer

Hi,

I would just analyse the statement and work upon that, with negation playing its part on its own.

Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers. 
Does it really affect the argument?
We know the unique recipe at each center, so we should be able to tell from where did that porcelain come from. If maximum came from one center or from several centers does not affect our argument.

The option means if 100 tons were made in 18th century Britian, more than 50 tons was made at one of the centers. But say not more than 5 tons was made at any one center. It really does not make our argument fall flat.

The scenario where the statement could be an assumption.
 Bristol had the maximum production of all centers, and there is more than 50% probability that next porcelain found would be from Bristol.

Now, the above would be an assumption, as for probability to be more than 50%, Bristol should be the place where at least 50% of the procelain in the 18th century was made.

Dwadesh72 · Answer

Thanks for the explanation. Really appreciate it.

SMQazi · Answer

Fact  A  presented in the paragraph: all cups are porcelain cups, supported by ' Each center developed a unique recipe for its porcelain '. We need fact and assumption that leads us to the origin of the next cup. We're looking to  Support  the archaeologists findings.

A. Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain.
a possible fact, that strengthens the claim. So it's relevant.

B. Some of the cups recovered from the archeological site were not made of porcelain.
a possible fact that goes against fact  A . Eliminate.

C. The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain.
an assumption, strengthens the claim. So it's relevant.

D. Porcelain makers often traveled between centers, experimenting with one another's recipes.
an assumption, weakens the claim, goes against fact  A , makes it harder to determine origin. Eliminate.

E. There was considerable overlap of materials in the recipes used by the various centers.
a possible fact, weakens the claim, makes it harder to determine origin. Eliminate.

F. Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers.
a possible fact, that doesn't add any value to the assumption (remember the question? a fact that logically supports the assumption, this doesn't), no positive or negative bias. Eliminate.

Gemmie · Answer

Required Assumption: The next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain.

The archaeologist's argument assumes that the next cup to be recovered from the archaeological site will likely be made of porcelain. This assumption is necessary because the entire argument is based on the premise that compositional analysis of the recovered cup will allow determination of its origin based on the unique recipes used by different porcelain-production centers.

Supporting Fact: Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain.

Other cups have been recovered from the archaeological site, all of which were made of porcelain. This fact provides significant logical support for the assumption. If previous cups recovered from the site were all made of porcelain, it suggests a pattern or trend that porcelain items were commonly used or produced at the site during the period under study. This pattern increases the likelihood that future recoveries, including the next cup, will also be made of porcelain. This consistency in the material of recovered items strengthens the archaeologist's inference that the next cup will likely conform to this pattern.

Blackcrow1972 · Answer

The statement "Most porcelain in 18th century Britain was made at one of the several centers" is incorrect as the "possible fact" in this context because it does not provide direct support for the archaeologist's assumption that the next cup to be recovered from the site will likely be made of porcelain.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB

Actually, I had marked options in vice-versa manner, as an intuitive check to avoid this kind of mistake in future, can we say that the conclusion is in  future tense  so a required assumption will also be in future tense and fact to support it has happened in the past?

I am not making any generic rule here, just checking an intuitive approach to have a hygiene check before marking the answer.

BinodBhai · Answer

Similar official ques, different situation but similar answers... I attempted that one first and took me ~3 mins https://gmatclub.com/forum/vendor-in-co ... 40228.html

cheshire · Answer

Sometimes, yes — but as you mentioned not always.

This is a common GMAT structure:
 
  Conclusion:  future prediction 
  Assumption:  future condition must hold 
  Supporting fact:  past pattern that makes the assumption more believable

So yes, when a conclusion is in the future, it’s common for the required assumption to also be future-oriented.
Just a final check that might help you.

bumpbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club BumpBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in

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

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.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Archaeologist: There were several porcelain-production centers in

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