Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 27 May 2017, 17:41

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1899
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [1] , given: 1

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2008, 20:10
1
KUDOS
21
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (02:25) correct 41% (01:41) wrong based on 965 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

18.
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

I lost somewhere!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Last edited by ankurgupta03 on 09 Jun 2014, 06:40, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 791
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

19 May 2008, 20:56
B
sondenso wrote:
18.
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
This would weaken the argument
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
Yes this provide further proof that trade goods would be found if the dating is later than 1620
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
no..
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
this would not strength the argument since if it were used every few years, then there might be european good left
I lost somewhere!
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3586
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 575

Kudos [?]: 3982 [0], given: 360

### Show Tags

19 May 2008, 21:10
I guess it is C.

The argument depends on the assumption that:
if European good were at a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek, Archaeologists have to find these goods during excavations.

Otherwise, absence of European goods at camp can also mean that these goods were destroyed that, in turn, destroys the conclusion.
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 787
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 May 2008, 21:16
Is it A?

If there is no trade goods in the camp, and european trade goods arrived before the europeans. Then it is safe to say that the camp was not in use at the time the europeans arrived. Furthermore, the native americans would be likely to trust and trade with each other first (for european's goods) before they would trade with the europeans. So even if the europeans arrived in the 1620s, it might had taken them a while to gain the trust and trade with the natives.

B seems like a trap, because the camps might have dated to the 1620s but if the camps were continued to be in use until much later, they would certainly contain trade goods that arrived much later.
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1443
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 285 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 May 2008, 14:38
This one really kicks my butt. My guess is A, B, C are possible...
Awaiting help...
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1899
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 May 2008, 19:36
OA is B
_________________
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2957
Followers: 61

Kudos [?]: 601 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

25 May 2008, 20:20
Any explanations as to why B is incorrect ?
Director
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2008, 12:57
Can someone explain the logic here...I don't even understand what it is saying in the premises and conclusion...Can someone explain the time sequence here?
Manager
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2008, 13:20
Need explanation.
B says camp must be dated before 1630. But no remains were found to support it. So date should be much earlier to 1630. Okay, so somehow it supports the answer. (Because we have a concrete date).
_________________

Many people dream, but some wake up and work towards it.

Director
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 330 [2] , given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2008, 14:10
2
KUDOS
I don't even see the logic...Is this saying that the camp is existed between 1605 and 1755 based on carbon dating, but the camp is probably died off before 1630, because there was no european goods at the site, and those goods stated coming into the area at 1620....That means there is a 10 year difference between the two? I do not understand the logic...can someone spell it out for a idiot like me.
VP
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1323
Schools: Tuck
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 127 [5] , given: 6

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 14:47
5
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Here is my thinking:

a) "Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755."

- this is what I call evidence A, it is not indispute.

b) "However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward."

- this a conclusion (in bold) and the additional evidence (evidence B)
- evidence B has two parts too: "since no European trade goods were found at the site" is support for the conclusion AND "European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward" is support for the first phrase ""since no European..."
- if someone were to attack the argument, they will attack the phrase "since no European trade goods were found at the site" because there are other ways for the goods to get there other than by "European traders were active in the region"

c) before I even read the answers, I try and figure out what would strengthen (in this case) the conclusion.

- well the it HAS to concern the presence or absence of European trade goods, since that was the evidence (evidence B) used to arrive at the conclusion. So focus on answers that concern European goods.

- it's sometimes helpful to think about what would weaken the argument, since that is likely a wrong answer. In this case, if there was another way for the European goods to get to the site, that would weaken the argument. However, we want to strengthen the argument, so the right answer will likely provide evidence that will weaken any statements that weaken the argument (if that makes sense)

- for example, I would think "well, what if someone else brought the goods to the site?". Ok, what would weaken that argument? Well, if other local camps didn't have any goods before the Europeans got there, that is pretty good evidence that the only way the goods could have got there is from the presence of European traders. This would support the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site".

**of course, I wouldn't necessarily come to that exact conclusion, but I would be thinking along those lines

This is all BEFORE I look at the questions. It's helps clarify in your mind what is relevant and what is not. You're unlikely to actually come up with the right answer yourself, but thinking in this way will help clarify your own understanding of the argument.

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

This obviously weaken the argument. It is evidence that weakens evidence B

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

This strengthens evidence B. If all the other camps in the region had them in the late 1620s, then the likelihood that this camp had them at that time is pretty high. Remember, the basis of the conclusion is that the camp is from before the 1630s because it DIDN'T have any goods. This answer backs up the idea that if the camp was from after 1630, it almost certainly would have contained European goods (just like the other camps in the region). This directly supports the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site"

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

Irrelevant. It provides no information on whether the camp in question would European goods or not.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

Also irrelevant. Nothing was said about European explorers, so it provides no support either way.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

Also irrelevant. Whether the camp was seasonal or not provides no support either way.

Hope that helps.

NN
_________________
VP
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1323
Schools: Tuck
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 127 [3] , given: 6

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 14:55
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
jimmyjamesdonkey wrote:
I don't even see the logic...Is this saying that the camp is existed between 1605 and 1755 based on carbon dating, but the camp is probably died off before 1630, because there was no european goods at the site, and those goods stated coming into the area at 1620....That means there is a 10 year difference between the two? I do not understand the logic...can someone spell it out for a idiot like me.

------------
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
--------------

The phrases "no later than 1630", means the camp dates to sometime between 1605 and 1630.

The correct answer states "(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found."

Note they didn't say "dated to 1630", but rather "late 1620s". They do that just to confuse you. Since the conclusion simply states "no later than 1630" and the answer B says "dated to the late 1620s", they are still in agreement (since late 1620s is no later than 1630).

NN
_________________
Director
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 15:06
are we sure the 1630 isn't just a typo?
Manager
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 55
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 16:05
I'd pick B

18.
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
out of scope
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
I read this as all camps dated to 1620 and later had european goods, which strengthens the assertion from the passage that the camp probably dates to no later than 1630 (no later than 1630 would be 1629, which is a year in the late 1620's)
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
out of scope
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
unrelated
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
introduces new information, out of scope
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1899
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 20:40
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Nognig, I have been gone with the WIND of posts , I forgot sending my words of "thanks" to your help! Your reasoning is really helpful. I wish to see more the same thorough reasoning for other questions- my ambition!
Thanks!

nognig wrote:
for example, I would think "well, what if someone else brought the goods to the site?". Ok, what would weaken that argument? Well, if other local camps didn't have any goods before the Europeans got there, that is pretty good evidence that the only way the goods could have got there is from the presence of European traders. This would support the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site".

**of course, I wouldn't necessarily come to that exact conclusion, but I would be thinking along those lines

This is all BEFORE I look at the questions. It's helps clarify in your mind what is relevant and what is not. You're unlikely to actually come up with the right answer yourself, but thinking in this way will help clarify your own understanding of the argument.

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

This obviously weaken the argument. It is evidence that weakens evidence B

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

This strengthens evidence B. If all the other camps in the region had them in the late 1620s, then the likelihood that this camp had them at that time is pretty high. Remember, the basis of the conclusion is that the camp is from before the 1630s because it DIDN'T have any goods. This answer backs up the idea that if the camp was from after 1630, it almost certainly would have contained European goods (just like the other camps in the region). This directly supports the statement "since no European trade goods were found at the site"

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

Irrelevant. It provides no information on whether the camp in question would European goods or not.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

Also irrelevant. Nothing was said about European explorers, so it provides no support either way.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

Also irrelevant. Whether the camp was seasonal or not provides no support either way.

Hope that helps.

nognig wrote:

------------
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
--------------

The phrases "no later than 1630", means the camp dates to sometime between 1605 and 1630.

The correct answer states "(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found."

Note they didn't say "dated to 1630", but rather "late 1620s". They do that just to confuse you. Since the conclusion simply states "no later than 1630" and the answer B says "dated to the late 1620s", they are still in agreement (since late 1620s is no later than 1630).

_________________

Last edited by sondenso on 03 Jun 2008, 20:54, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1899
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 20:49
jimmyjamesdonkey wrote:
are we sure the 1630 isn't just a typo?

Jimmy, it is not typing error! just make sure that you got the logic here! Probaply, you will see it in the real. I am a foreseer!
_________________
Director
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 05:17
I see now!!! the word "late" is key to B being right!!!!
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 251 [0], given: 29

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2012, 00:30
can anyone explain why is option c incorrect
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10364
Followers: 1000

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2013, 00:57
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 1432
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.35
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 306

Kudos [?]: 1268 [0], given: 817

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2014, 06:41
Bumping the topic.
Any insights on what is wrong with C?
_________________

ISB Preparation Kit | GMAT Debrief

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American   [#permalink] 09 Jun 2014, 06:41

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 29 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 For many years, historians insisted that Native American women 5 22 May 2015, 23:17
9 Archaeologist: A skeleton of a North American mastodon that 3 27 Nov 2015, 08:43
9 Revision Project: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated 8 14 May 2015, 05:17
7 GMATPREP ChallengeQ -Archaeologists in Michigan have excavat 4 08 Oct 2016, 06:54
4 Archaeologists have discovered various paintings on the 13 25 May 2014, 07:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by