Archaeologists digging near a fourteenth-century monastery discovered

Question

﻿Archaeologists digging near a fourteenth-century monastery discovered the area where, for about 50 years, the monastery's kitchen waste was discarded. Under the monastery's dietary rules at the time, there were many occasions on which fish could be eaten but not meat. Yet, of the bones in the waste heap, only a small proportion are fish bones. Therefore, during those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish.
B. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were required to eat fish.
C. During the fourteenth century, there were no readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery.
D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors. 
E. During the 50 years, the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules.

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

during those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish even on occasions when meat was forbidden

The conclusion is supported by the following information:

Under the monastery's dietary rules at the time, there were many occasions on which fish could be eaten but not meat. Yet of the bones in the waste heap, only a small proportion are fish bones.

The reasoning of the argument is basically that, because "only a small proportion" of the bones in the waste heap are fish bones, it's probable that the monks rarely ate fish even when eating meat was forbidden.

The correct answer must be an assumption upon which that reasoning depends.

A. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish.

Notice that, even if there WERE occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish, the argument would still work because the conclusion is that the monks rarely ate fish, and there being occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish is in line with the idea that the monks rarely ate fish.

So, even if this choice is not true, the argument works.

Eliminate.

B. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were required to eat fish.

Notice that even if there WERE occasions on which monks were required to eat fish, the evidence that "only a small proportion" of the bones in the waste heap are fish bones still supports the conclusion that "monks probably only rarely ate fish."

After all, even if the monks were required to eat fish on some occasions, it still appears that they rarely ate fish.

So, the argument does not depend on the assumption that "there were NO occasions on which monks were required to eat fish."

Eliminate.

C. During the fourteenth century there were no readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery.

The argument uses the fact that "only a small proportion" of the bones in the waste heap are fish bones to support the conclusion that "monks probably only rarely ate fish."

That information supports the conclusion regardless of whether there were readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery. After all, even if there were readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery, the fact that only a small proportion of the bones in the waste heap are fish bones indicates that the monks rarely ate fish.

Eliminate.

D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors.

Notice that the author uses the proportions of bones in the waste heap to determine what the monks ate. In doing so, the author makes the general assumption that the contents of the waste heap accurately indicate what the monks ate.

So, what if the excavated waste area WAS widely used by the monastery's neighbors? In that case, it could be that the contents of the waste heap do not indicate what the monks ate. In other words, it could be that the monks often ate fish but only a small proportion of the bones in the waste heap are fish bones because the neighbors didn't each much fish.

So, the argument depends on the assumption that "the excavated waste area was NOT widely used by the monastery's neighbors.

Keep.

E. During the 50 years, the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules.

Regardless of how strictly the monks observed the monastery's dietary rules, the fact that "only a small proportion" of the bones in the waste heap are fish bones supports the conclusion that "monks probably only rarely ate fish."

After all, even if the monks did NOT observe the monastery's dietary rules, the proportions of different types of bones in the waste heap still indicate that they didn't eat fish.

So, this choice is not a necessary assumption.

Eliminate.

The correct answer is  D

gmatophobia · Answer

Conclusion of the argument : Therefore, during those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden. Evidence Provided : Therefore, during those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden. A. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish. The conclusion of the argument is " monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden ". This statement doesn't provide the necessary information to support the conclusion. We already know from the premise that the monks were permitted to eat fish on certain occasions, and our conclusion focuses on such occasions. The conclusion and the statement in option A focus on two separate events. B. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were required to eat fish. Does this matter? The premise of the argument mentions that " there were many occasions on which fish could be eaten but not meat " and our conclusion is around these occasions. Hence, even if monks were required to eat fish on one or more occasions the information doesn't help arrive at the conclusion on whether they rarely ate fish when meat was forbidden . C. During the fourteenth century, there were no readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery. This statement is out of scope. The author concludes that the monks rarely ate fish as a small proportion was found in the area. How did the monks get those fish is not what we are trying to find out as the missing link. We can hence, eliminate this option. D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors. A good one to consider. The reason the author concludes that the monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden was due to the presence of a "small proportion" of fish bones. Hence, the author assumes that the kitchen waste area was exclusively used by the monastery. If the kitchen waste were used by others, we cannot arrive at any conclusion based on the evidence found in that area. It is well possible that the monks ate a lot of fish, but the fish bones were picked up by the monastery's neighbors (don't ask me why - maybe to make jewelry

) or the fish bones were dumped by the monastery's neighbors and the monks did not eat fishes at all. So this statement is a necessary assumption. E. During the 50 years, the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules. The conclusion of the argument doesn't depend on whether the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules. We are trying to find a piece of evidence to link the observation that the author has made ( of the bones in the waste heap, only a small proportion are fish bones ) in arriving at his conclusion ( Therefore, during those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden. ). Hence, this option can be eliminated. Option D

Paras96 · Answer

IMO D

If the area was widely used by the neighbors, the influence on the result may have changed.

sram1496 · Answer

How to eliminate option E? If negated it can weaken the conclusion.

Paras96 · Answer

D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors.

The argument's conclusion is based on the assumption that the waste heap being excavated was primarily generated by the monastery's kitchen waste and not contaminated by waste from neighboring sources. If the waste area was widely used by neighbors or other sources, it could explain the low proportion of fish bones without relying on the conclusion that the monks rarely ate fish. This assumption ensures that the evidence used to support the conclusion is reliable and applicable specifically to the monastery's dietary practices.

vishalsinghvs08 · Answer

Hi Sir -

I have two questions on this, please

The conclusion is "monks probably only rarely ate fish" - so negation would be something like - "they ate fish a lot of times".

Question 1 - For Option D - if I negate this, it would be something like - The excavated waste area was widely used by the monastery's neighbors"
I am not sure how is this shattering my conclusion, which ideally a negated option should be doing(to the best of my knowledge).

Question 2 - I negated it in two ways. I am not sure if this is right or not?
>>>> Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were occasions on which monks were required to eat fish.
>>>> Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not required to eat fish.
Both these negation does not shatter my conclusion. Good enough reason for me to move ahead and look for other options.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Thank you

anand123prk · Answer

Hi, 
I would just like to add my two cents here. Maybe that will help clear some doubts. Firstly, let’s not negate the conclusion. Let it be as it is ‘Monks probably only rarely ate fish’. The reason is because out of the bones discovered from the area, only a small proportion were fish bones.

As you have rightly brought out, application of the negation technique would render option D as ‘The excavated area was widely used by the monastery’s neighbours’. Although on the surface this option seems irrelevant, we need to dive a layer deeper and extrapolate our understanding of the option. For example, if the area was widely used by neighbours then they were also using this area as their dumping ground (perhaps to dump the bones of animals they ate) and it was probably because of this dumping that the proportion of fish bones from the monastery was small. If that is the case then our conclusion will be shaky. Hence, for the conclusion to hold true it must be assumed that the area was exclusively being used by the monastery and not by the neighbours too.

Just to summarise, only negating the option might not shatter the conclusion on harder questions. We might need to dig a level deeper. Cheers!

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - ﻿
Archaeologists digging near a fourteenth-century monastery discovered the area where, for about 50 years, the monastery's kitchen waste was discarded. - Fact 
Under the monastery's dietary rules at the time, there were many occasions on which fish could be eaten but not meat. - Fact. They could eat fish (but could avoid it as well) but not meat. 
Yet, of the bones in the waste heap, only a small proportion are fish bones. - Fact. 
Therefore, during those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden. - Conclusion. "They rarely eat fish."

Assumption -

A. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish. - It means Under the monastery's dietary rules, monks were always allowed to eat fish. Contradictory to what is stated in the argument. Wrong.

B. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were required to eat fish. - Again, contradictory, they were allowed on "some" occasions.

C. During the fourteenth century, there were no readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery. - So what? On these special occasions, they could have still gotten access. Distortion.

D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors. - Yes. Monks were allowed occasionally, as we know from the argument. The waste shows fewer fish bones, meaning even after having permission, they rarely eat fish. Ok.

E. During the 50 years, the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules. - Ok, so if they followed the diet, they could have eaten fish? Yes. So, how can we give a contradictory conclusion that they rarely eat fish? In that sense, it's a weakener.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:

The dietary rules of the monastery were such that fish was allowed on many occasions but meat was not. (At other occasions, perhaps both were eaten)
Of the bones in the heap, only a small proportion are fish bones (Unexpected! Since fish was allowed on many more occasions than meat, there should be far more fish bones)

Conclusion:  During those 50 years, monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden.
So even when monks were not allowed meat, they still did not eat fish much. Perhaps they ate only veggies on those occasions - whatever. The point is that they ate little fish is the conclusion.

What is our assumption?

A. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish.

Not an assumption. All we are saying is that they did not eat much fish, relatively speaking. No assumption about what the rules were.

B. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were required to eat fish.

Not an assumption. All we are saying is that they did not eat much fish, relatively speaking. No assumption about what the rules were.

C. During the fourteenth century, there were no readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery.

We don't need to assume that fish was not available to say that monks did not eat much of it. The reason for their not eatign much of it is irrelevant.

D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors.

Correct. We are assuming that all the bones came from the monastery. Then we are looking at the proportion of fish bones and infering about the diet on the monks. But what if other people were dumping their bones too (who only ate meat)?

E. During the 50 years, the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules.

This is not an assumption. Note that we are saying that even when they were allowed to eat fish, they did not. We are concluding about their actual diet and what that was, not anything about whether they followed the rules strictly.

Answer (D)

siddhantvarma · Answer

To determine which assumption the argument depends on, we need to understand the argument's structure and identify any unstated premises necessary for the conclusion to hold.

Argument Breakdown:

Premises: 
1. Archaeologists discovered a waste area near a fourteenth-century monastery.
2. This area contained kitchen waste discarded over about 50 years.
3. The monastery's dietary rules allowed fish on many occasions when meat was forbidden.
4. The waste heap contained only a small proportion of fish bones.

Conclusion:

Monks probably only rarely ate fish, even on occasions when meat was forbidden.

Analysis of Answer Choices:
 A. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were not permitted to eat fish. 
This is not necessary for the argument. The argument is about how often fish was eaten, not about the permissibility of eating fish.

B. Under the monastery's dietary rules, there were no occasions on which monks were required to eat fish. 
This also does not affect the conclusion. The argument does not rely on whether monks were ever required to eat fish, but rather on the frequency of fish consumption.

C. During the fourteenth century, there were no readily available supplies of fish in the area near the monastery. 
This could explain why few fish bones were found, but it is not a necessary assumption. The argument can still hold even if fish were readily available but not consumed frequently.

D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors. 
 Correct . For the argument to hold, we need to assume that the waste heap accurately reflects the monks' dietary habits. If neighbors also used the waste area, the data would be skewed, and the conclusion about the monks' eating habits would be invalid.

E. During the 50 years, the monks strictly observed the monastery's dietary rules.

This is not necessary because the argument does not depend on strict observance of the rules, but rather on the frequency of fish consumption when meat was forbidden.

Conclusion: 
The assumption that the monastery's neighbours did not widely use the excavated waste area is essential for the argument. If the waste heap contained waste from neighbours, it would not accurately represent the monks' dietary habits, undermining the conclusion.

Therefore, the correct answer is:
  D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors.

Gemmie · Answer

D. The excavated waste area was not widely used by the monastery's neighbors.

This would affect the argument because the presence of few fish bones might not accurately reflect the monks' eating habits if other groups contributed to the waste heap. For the argument that the monks rarely ate fish to hold, it must be assumed that the waste heap is solely from the monks. If neighbors used the same waste area, the proportion of fish bones might not accurately represent the monks' consumption patterns. Hence, the argument relies on the assumption that the waste area was primarily used by the monks to draw conclusions about their dietary habits.

---

Option A & B:  The argument doesn't depend on there being no occasions when fish was not permitted. It only needs to assume that when fish was permitted, it was actually eaten.

Option C:  The availability of fish in the area is not relevant to the argument, as it focuses on the monastery's dietary practices.

Option E:  This option is incorrect because the argument does not depend on the monks strictly observing the dietary rules. It only needs to assume that the waste heap accurately reflects their dietary practices.

monkinaferrari · Answer

Hi  egmat  could you please provide your explanation for this question ? I see issues while solving this question with falsification process

MickV · Answer

Isn't E also an assumption on which the argument depends? If the monks would not observe/follow the rules, they could regularly eat fish but simply also eat a lot of meat, going against dietary rules, which could dilute the proportion of fish bones found in the waste heaps while they could still eat fish regularly. Therefore, wouldn't non-compliance with the rules damage the argument made?

Dbrunik · Answer

This question tries to confuse you by starting A and B with double negatives, forcing you to go through the negation technique. When you encounter something like this, skip these and come back, look for a better answer first.

When you read the passage, you should have been visualizing a Monastery and a trash heap. nothing else was mentioned. Answer D introduces something new that mixes with our existing information. if you have another group that is contributing to the same trash heap, it impacts how much information we can gather from said heap. Further, think of it as a fraction:

fish bones before extraneous variable: 1/100
fish bones after extraneous variable: 1/100+x

This is diluting the fraction.

simple enough?

D.

Archaeologists digging near a fourteenth-century monastery discovered

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Archaeologists digging near a fourteenth-century monastery discovered

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