Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
08 Mar 2024, 11:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
72% (01:46) correct
28%
(02:10)
wrong
based on 1089
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Archaeologists have firm evidence that Norse explorers reached the coast of North America around A.D. 1000, long before Christopher Columbus’ first voyage to America in 1492. Some people claim to have excavated Norse weapons dating from the 1300‘s in areas far inland from Norse coastal sites. If these claims are true, then the Norse must have explored the interior of North America, as well as the coast, before Columbus’ first voyage.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The sites where weapons were found were the locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements.
B. The Norse weapons were not brought by Native Americans to the sites where they were excavated.
C. Norse explorers were more likely to travel far inland than were later explorers of North America.
D. Norse explorers would not have made expeditions far inland in North America without weapons.
E. The design of Norse weapons did not change significantly between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
GMAT-Club-Forum-iovged8d.png [ 94.85 KiB | Viewed 2909 times ]
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The sites where weapons were found were the locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements.
B. The Norse weapons were not brought by Native Americans to the sites where they were excavated.
C. Norse explorers were more likely to travel far inland than were later explorers of North America.
D. Norse explorers would not have made expeditions far inland in North America without weapons.
E. The design of Norse weapons did not change significantly between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-iovged8d.png [ 94.85 KiB | Viewed 2909 times ]
10 Jun 2024, 18:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Archaeologists have firm evidence that Norse explorers reached the coast of North America around A.D. 1000, long before Christopher Columbus’ first voyage to America in 1492. Some people claim to have excavated Norse weapons dating from the 1300‘s in areas far inland from Norse coastal sites. If these claims are true, then the Norse must have explored the interior of North America, as well as the coast, before Columbus’ first voyage.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
If these claims are true, then the Norse must have explored the interior of North America, as well as the coast, before Columbus’ first voyage.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
Some people claim to have excavated Norse weapons dating from the 1300‘s in areas far inland from Norse coastal sites.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that the presence of Norse weapons in areas far inland indicates that the Norse traveled far inland.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will state something that must be true for the evidence that Norse weapones were found inland to support the conclusion that the Norse must have explored the interior of North America.
A. The sites where weapons were found were the locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements.
If this choice were true, it would certainly confirm that the Norse explored the interior of North America.
At the same time, we aren't looking for a choice that just confirms the conclusion. We're looking for a choice that's necessary for the evidence already provided to support th conclusion, and this choice doesn't fit that criterion.
After all, even if the sites were not locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements, it could still be the case that the reason weapons were found inland is that the Norse went inland. After all, they could have explored the interior of North America without creating relatively permanent settlements there.
Eliminate.
B. The Norse weapons were not brought by Native Americans to the sites where they were excavated.
This choice is interesting. After all, if the weapons WERE brought by Native Amercians to the sites where they were found by Native Americans, then the fact that the weapons were found inland doesn't indicate that the Norse went inland. After all, if the weapons were brought there by Native Americans, then there's no clear connection between the location where the weapons were found and the Norse.
So, for the evidence about weapons being found inland to support the conclusion that the Norse must have explored the interior of North America, it must be true that the weapons were NOT brought by Native Americans to the inland sites.
Thus, this choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
Keep.
C. Norse explorers were more likely to travel far inland than were later explorers of North America.
This choice may indicate that it's likely that the Norse traveled far inland. At the same time, it doesn't state a necessary assumption.
After all, even if the Norse were not more likely to travel far inland than other explorers, it could still be that they did travel far inland and that the reason why the weapons were found far inland is that the Norse traveled there.
Eliminate.
D. Norse explorers would not have made expeditions far inland in North America without weapons.
This choice is pretty tempting because it connects everything were concerned with: the Norse, weapons, and making expeditions far inland. At the same time, notice that this choice states basically the opposite of what must be assumed. Here's what I mean.
Weapons were found, and the argument concludes that the presence of the weapons means the Norse were there.
In other words, the argument assumes that where weapons are, the Norse were.
This choice goes the other way. It says basically that where the Norse were, weapons were.
So, this choice doesn't state an assumption on which the argument depends. After all, even if the Norse would have explored without weapons, the fact that Norse weapons were found somewhere would still tend to indicate that the Norse traveled there.
Eliminate.
E. The design of Norse weapons did not change significantly between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
This choice has the vibe of being something necessary for the argument to work. In other words, this choice could get us thinking something along the lines of "There it is. The argument depends on the fact that the design didn't change. After all, if it did, then maybe those weapons were mistaken for Norse weapons but weren't actually Norse weapons, in which case the argument wouldn't work."
So, we have to be careful to see that there's no way a change in design matters and that, therefore, we can easily eliminate this choice.
After all, the argument says the following:
If these claims are true, then the Norse must have explored the interior of North America ....
We see that the argument isn't saying that the weapons are for sure Norse weapons or that the Norse for sure explored the interior of North America. The point of the argument is that, if in fact Norse weapons were found inland, then the Norse traveled inland.
In other words, the argument doesn't assume that the weapons were Norse weapons or that Norse weapons were found inland. It just states a conclusion about what's true IF such weapons were found inland.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
If these claims are true, then the Norse must have explored the interior of North America, as well as the coast, before Columbus’ first voyage.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
Some people claim to have excavated Norse weapons dating from the 1300‘s in areas far inland from Norse coastal sites.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that the presence of Norse weapons in areas far inland indicates that the Norse traveled far inland.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will state something that must be true for the evidence that Norse weapones were found inland to support the conclusion that the Norse must have explored the interior of North America.
A. The sites where weapons were found were the locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements.
If this choice were true, it would certainly confirm that the Norse explored the interior of North America.
At the same time, we aren't looking for a choice that just confirms the conclusion. We're looking for a choice that's necessary for the evidence already provided to support th conclusion, and this choice doesn't fit that criterion.
After all, even if the sites were not locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements, it could still be the case that the reason weapons were found inland is that the Norse went inland. After all, they could have explored the interior of North America without creating relatively permanent settlements there.
Eliminate.
B. The Norse weapons were not brought by Native Americans to the sites where they were excavated.
This choice is interesting. After all, if the weapons WERE brought by Native Amercians to the sites where they were found by Native Americans, then the fact that the weapons were found inland doesn't indicate that the Norse went inland. After all, if the weapons were brought there by Native Americans, then there's no clear connection between the location where the weapons were found and the Norse.
So, for the evidence about weapons being found inland to support the conclusion that the Norse must have explored the interior of North America, it must be true that the weapons were NOT brought by Native Americans to the inland sites.
Thus, this choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
Keep.
C. Norse explorers were more likely to travel far inland than were later explorers of North America.
This choice may indicate that it's likely that the Norse traveled far inland. At the same time, it doesn't state a necessary assumption.
After all, even if the Norse were not more likely to travel far inland than other explorers, it could still be that they did travel far inland and that the reason why the weapons were found far inland is that the Norse traveled there.
Eliminate.
D. Norse explorers would not have made expeditions far inland in North America without weapons.
This choice is pretty tempting because it connects everything were concerned with: the Norse, weapons, and making expeditions far inland. At the same time, notice that this choice states basically the opposite of what must be assumed. Here's what I mean.
Weapons were found, and the argument concludes that the presence of the weapons means the Norse were there.
In other words, the argument assumes that where weapons are, the Norse were.
This choice goes the other way. It says basically that where the Norse were, weapons were.
So, this choice doesn't state an assumption on which the argument depends. After all, even if the Norse would have explored without weapons, the fact that Norse weapons were found somewhere would still tend to indicate that the Norse traveled there.
Eliminate.
E. The design of Norse weapons did not change significantly between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
This choice has the vibe of being something necessary for the argument to work. In other words, this choice could get us thinking something along the lines of "There it is. The argument depends on the fact that the design didn't change. After all, if it did, then maybe those weapons were mistaken for Norse weapons but weren't actually Norse weapons, in which case the argument wouldn't work."
So, we have to be careful to see that there's no way a change in design matters and that, therefore, we can easily eliminate this choice.
After all, the argument says the following:
If these claims are true, then the Norse must have explored the interior of North America ....
We see that the argument isn't saying that the weapons are for sure Norse weapons or that the Norse for sure explored the interior of North America. The point of the argument is that, if in fact Norse weapons were found inland, then the Norse traveled inland.
In other words, the argument doesn't assume that the weapons were Norse weapons or that Norse weapons were found inland. It just states a conclusion about what's true IF such weapons were found inland.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
General Discussion
08 Mar 2024, 14:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Conclusion: The Norse must have explored the interior of North America, as well as the coast, before Columbus’ first voyage.
Supporting Evidence: Some people claim to have excavated Norse weapons dating from the 1300s in areas far inland from Norse coastal sites
Hence, while concluding the argument, the author believes that these weapons were brought by The Norse and not anyone else.
Answer Choice Elimination
A. The sites where weapons were found were the locations of relatively permanent Norse settlements.
This assumption is not necessary for the argument's conclusion. Whether the sites were permanent settlements or not doesn't affect the conclusion of the argument. Therefore, we can eliminate A.
B. The Norse weapons were not brought by Native Americans to the sites where they were excavated.
This is a necessary assumption. The author assumed that the weapons were brought by the Norse explorers. If Native Americans brought the weapons, it wouldn't prove Norse exploration to the coast. Hence, we can keep B.
C. Norse explorers were more likely to travel far inland than were later explorers of North America.
This assumption is not necessary for the argument's conclusion. How far the Norse explorers traveled compared to other explorers is not the author's contention.
D. Norse explorers would not have made expeditions far inland in North America without weapons.
This option weakens the argument but is not an assumption. Firstly the conclusion made by the author is related to both the coast and the far inland, however, the presented option only refers to the expeditions made far inland. Also, the option does not necessarily need to be true. For example, even if not all Norse explorers made expeditions far inland in North America without weapons but some did, the conclusion can still hold. Hence, we can eliminate D.
E. The design of Norse weapons did not change significantly between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
This option is not essential to the argument's conclusion. Hence, we can eliminate E.
Option B
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-okarolfe.png [ 94.85 KiB | Viewed 2853 times ]
