Last visit was: 19 Jun 2025, 00:14 It is currently 19 Jun 2025, 00:14
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
LoneSurvivor
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Jul 2021
Posts: 306
Own Kudos:
743
 [1]
Given Kudos: 156
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Products:
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Posts: 306
Kudos: 743
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
alwaysHP
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 16 Aug 2018
Last visit: 30 Jun 2023
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 503
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
GRE 1: Q162 V150
GPA: 3.33
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
GRE 1: Q162 V150
Posts: 86
Kudos: 94
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Jun 2025
Posts: 4,597
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 683
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,597
Kudos: 32,277
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
pk6969
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Jan 2022
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.2
Posts: 136
Kudos: 14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
need help in eliminating C. I think its strengthening by saying that these goods were preserved and still no such goods were found. please help.
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,312
Own Kudos:
924
 [1]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,312
Kudos: 924
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pk6969
need help in eliminating C. I think its strengthening by saying that these goods were preserved and still no such goods were found. please help.

When you stuck in some option , you can go back to conclusion and relate with other premise given and check whether this options strengthens the argument even to a little bit or weakens or neutral tone.

In my first reading, I eliminated all options . Because B strengthens to some extend but not very prominently. I could share my opinion why I rejected C and how I came back to B.

Conclusion: the camp probably dates to no later than 1630. I stick to this point in my mind and give this statement utmost priority to decide the effect of options.

Let's see C
Quote:
(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.
Meaning: 1st European good was preserved for as long as possible.
What this statement indicates? - there should be high chances that European product should be found even after destruction. But We are given fact, no product was found.
What does it indicates? - It indicates that first European good was never reached there. Hence clarifies our premise:why no European product was found.
But does this have affect on our conclusion?
With this information, that European product never reached there , Can you say that camps dates to no later than 1630? We are in open dicussion now: Say yes, product was destroyed and no traces were found, it means it strengthens the claim. But there is other possibility that you can not challenge , maybe product never reached there , then it has no effect on our conclusion. Or why not product could reach in 1700s and still destroyed.
The key point is : there is no informaitn that can make any affect on the conclusion.
hence rejected.

Lets see what B does
Quote:
(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.
Ok, products were found in almost all sites except this camp site. What does it means? - It indicates that camp was not dated to late 1620s. It removes all possibilities of late 1630s, late 1700s etc. What does it mean , this camp could have been before late 1620s.
What I need to find: The camp probably dates to no later than 1630.
If you ask me : Was the task not done after 10 am.
If i reply you, it was done before 9am.
Do you get your answer that yes the task was not done after 10am.
Hence clearly strengthens.

This reasoning made me choose B.

Alternatively ,
My conclusion depends on some years.
Other option indicates nothing about years. Other options could be valid for any time; not just in late 1630s. So it was an indication for me too that B could be an answer. Reasoning helped me to choose B option.

I hope it helps.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 June 2025
Posts: 7,331
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,947
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,331
Kudos: 68,271
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pk6969
need help in eliminating C. I think its strengthening by saying that these goods were preserved and still no such goods were found. please help.
Take a look at this post and see whether that clears it up!
avatar
akshat3010
Joined: 08 Jul 2017
Last visit: 27 Jan 2023
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Posts: 14
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma Whats wrong with C? What if all European goods would have been destroyed?
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Jun 2025
Posts: 16,058
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 472
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,058
Kudos: 73,773
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
akshat3010
VeritasKarishma Whats wrong with C? What if all European goods would have been destroyed?

We are talking about trade goods of 1600s. "Careful preservation" does not imply that had they been there, we would have found them. Whether you are careful with the goods or not, while talking about centuries, it wouldn't make much difference. Perhaps they disintegrated over the years.
But (B) clearly states that at all camp sites after 1620s, the goods have been found. It means they don't deteriorate and last long enough to be found. Hence if this camp site did have them, it is likely that at least some goods would have been found.
Hence, (B) makes much more sense than (C).
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 16 Jun 2025
Posts: 812
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Products:
Posts: 812
Kudos: 138
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argument -
The conclusion is The camp is probably dated no later than 1630. Meaning it no way belongs to a date after 1630. What will support it? If we know that after 1630 sites have 100% evidence of something that this site is missing.

Option Elimination -

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did. We know that traders were active in the 1620s. Let's say the good reached this site before 1620. Then what? Are we 100% sure that those goods could have survived and were not further exchanged for something else? Moreover, the author could have said that the site dates no later than the early 1620s. Yes, I agree this doesn't weaken. But at the same time, it doesn't provide a solid reason as well to say with 100% confidence that this site has to be before the 1630s. This is classic distortion.

(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. - See "all." So it means that definitely, had this been after 1630, we should have gotten some European trade goods. So it is before 1930. It may be 1620 or 1625 or before, but definitely not after 1630. ok.

(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. - Another classic distortion. Does it even address the dating aspect of the argument? No.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers. - Out of scope.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned. - it doesn't help explain the dating aspect. Distortion.
User avatar
MS61
Joined: 05 Jun 2022
Last visit: 18 Jun 2025
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q84 V76 DI80
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V27
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q84 V76 DI80
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V27
Posts: 103
Kudos: 39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Facts :
1. animal bones dated : between 1605 and 1755
2. Europeans trading active since 1620's
: Since no European items found, hence the area was active till 1630's

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did. - Incorrect : No European trade goods were found

(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. - Correct : since other places with later 1620's had the European goods, hence the founded area would be active only till 1630'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. - Incorrect: No impact

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers. - Incorrect: No impact

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned - Incorrect : Out of scope
User avatar
Vasavan
Joined: 10 May 2023
Last visit: 18 Jun 2025
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 51
Kudos: 16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja,
The conclusion of the argument is that the site was no later than 1630.
The reason I picked A was that, it says that the European goods would have reached before the European traders themselves. This means that the date of the European goods is probably before 1620s. Since the site contains no European goods, we can further narrow down the date to before 1620s instead of 1630s, which strengthens the argument
B says that "All other sites in late 1620s contained European goods". I eliminated this on the grounds that it does not give us any information as this is expected from the argument.
Can you let me know where my reasoning is wrong?

Thanks in advance.
GMATNinja
adkikani
GMATNinja generis VeritasPrepKarishma GMATNinjaTwo

Can you please explain where I am faltering in PoE based on below understanding:

Quote:
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek

A fact which presents the context of argument. Few Archaeologists have excavated NA
camp.
Quote:
Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755.
These archaeologists used RD and concluded that camp dates between 1605 and 1755.

Quote:
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.
Key word - However, I should be expecting a contrast.
Yes, author concludes that the camp dated before 1630 (why?)
Evidence 1: no European trade goods were found at the site, and
Evidence 2: European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Basically the author narrows down the approximation of earlier result between 1605 to 1629

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

Quote:
(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area beforethe European traders themselves did.
Highlighted text weakens the argument.
Quote:
(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.
Highlighted text renders this option irrelevant to my conclusion, which is about NA camp not all camps.

Quote:
(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.
Yes, a strengthener can also be an assumption. If I negate this:
The first European trade goods to reach the area would NOT have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
This breaks my conclusion, hence hold on to this.
Quote:
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon afterthe first European explorers.
Highlighted text weakens the conclusion.

Quote:
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
This option too weakens the conclusion.
Hi adkikani, thanks for the post!

Let's start with choice (C):

Quote:
(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.
Choice (C) is tempting because it suggests that care would have been taken to protect European goods. But does that necessarily mean that those goods would have survived until the present day? Perhaps the European goods were items that would have disintegrated over the course of a couple hundred years. Or perhaps the Native Americans took the European goods with them when they left the camp. Or perhaps the Native Americans traded the European goods for other items.

Just because the European goods were preserved as much as possible does not necessarily mean that we would find their remains at the campsite hundreds of years later. (C) doesn't hurt the argument, but without further evidence it's hard to say whether it strengthens the argument.

Now let's come back to choice (B):

Quote:
(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.
Remember, the author's argument is based on the fact that no European trade goods were found at the site. European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward. So, according to the author, we would expect to find European goods at any campsite used after about 1630.

But this argument has a huge problem, as described in this post:

GMATNinja
Let's say that the camp was actually used in 1650, when European traders were active in the region. Would that necessarily mean that we should find European trade goods at the site? What if any trace of those goods simply disappeared after a few hundred years? Or what if the Native Americans took those goods with them when they moved on from the camp?
Just because we didn't find any European goods at the campsite, can we reliably say that the campsite must have existed before 1630?

Yes, choice (C) refers to ALL camps, but ALL camps in the region would include Native Americans camps in the region. European goods have been found at ALL camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's. This evidence suggests that ANY camp in the region (INCLUDING Native American camps) that existed during the late 1620's or later WOULD in fact have remains of European goods. This eliminates the doubt described above and thus strengthens the argument.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 June 2025
Posts: 7,331
Own Kudos:
68,271
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,947
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,331
Kudos: 68,271
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vasavan
Hi GMATNinja,

The conclusion of the argument is that the site was no later than 1630.

The reason I picked A was that, it says that the European goods would have reached before the European traders themselves. This means that the date of the European goods is probably before 1620s. Since the site contains no European goods, we can further narrow down the date to before 1620s instead of 1630s, which strengthens the argument

B says that "All other sites in late 1620s contained European goods". I eliminated this on the grounds that it does not give us any information as this is expected from the argument.

Can you let me know where my reasoning is wrong?
That's a fair point. If (A) is true and if, for example, the European traders arrived in that area 1625, then we'd expect European trade goods to be at that site starting sometime before 1625.

But the argument still has a major flaw: what if evidence of European trade goods simply was not durable enough to last? In that case, it's possible that the European trade goods were in fact at the site and that there's simply no evidence or remains of those goods. So (A) refines the date a little bit, but it doesn't do much to actually strengthen the argument compared to what's already given in the passage.

(B) addresses the major flaw by giving us reason to believe that archaeologists would likely see evidence or remains of those goods today if there were in fact European trade goods at the site in the 1600s. So (B) is a better answer.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7331 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts