GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Jun 2018, 22:47

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1787
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Premium Member
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 07 Oct 2017, 00:16
4
29
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:44) correct 37% (01:43) wrong based on 855 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings


Originally posted by sondenso on 19 May 2008, 20:10.
Last edited by hazelnut on 07 Oct 2017, 00:16, edited 3 times in total.
Edited the question.
2 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 787
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2008, 14:10
2
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.
6 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1322
Schools: Tuck
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2008, 14:47
6
2
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.

Now onto the answers....

(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
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

4 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1322
Schools: Tuck
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2008, 14:55
4
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.


That's the GMAT writers messing with your head.

------------
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
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 52
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: EnterMBA (https://www.facebook.com/entermba)
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 158
Location: India
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2014, 20:46
1
Dear Ankur,

The conclusion of the argument is that the camp probably dates to no later than 1630. The reason provided is that no European trade goods were found at the site at that time even though the European traders were fairly active then.

If C is true, then whatever goods reached the area via the European traders (who were active 1620 onward) would have been preserved as much as possible. So, if anything, these goods would have been preserved until far beyond 1630. Also, these goods should have shown up during the excavation and subsequent radiocarbon dating -- but they did not. So this option would only weaken the argument.


--Prasad
GMAT and MBA admissions Coach
_________________

--Prasad
EnterMBA

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 893
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2014, 01:43
1
3
NEW PROJECT!: Back to basic => Give your explanation- Get Kudos Point for best explanation


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
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 122
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2014, 04:10
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.

if the camps dates to later than 1630, European trade goods must be found at the site

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 option emphasis that before 1620 European goods could be found on the region. but reaching European goods even before 1620 does not show that the European goods must be present in all sites of the region.

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.
the value of the goods are out of scope

D. The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
this option does not have any effect on the conclusion

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

how often the site would have been used is out of the scope of the argument
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 505
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2014, 06:50
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.
>>Weakens the arg.
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.
>>Doesn't matter if first goods were not stored properly.There should have been some proof of the goods that followed post them.
D. The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
>>Arrival of Explorer doesn't help.We need to show that goods didnt reach there before 1920.
E. The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned
>>Irrelevant.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 702
Location: India
GPA: 3.21
WE: Business Development (Other)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2014, 03:22
1
ankurgupta03 wrote:
Bumping the topic.
Any insights on what is wrong with C?



I know you need not worry about the answer now :-D but here is my take

Reason why C may be wrong is that the first European trade goods would have been valuable and preserved as much as possible from Loss or Destruction meaning that no matter what because of its value the goods would have preserved or kept safely...so finding them at excavation sites is less likely...so it does not help us strengthen the conclusion....
_________________


“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 505
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2015, 09:10
1
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek.
Radiocarbon 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.

Colored is premise and bold is conclusion.Conclusion is based upon the absence of trade good.

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.
>>Weakens the arg.
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 supports author's argument.

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.
>>Doesn't matter if first goods were not stored properly.There should have been some proof of the goods that followed post them.
D. The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
>>Arrival of Explorer doesn't help.We need to show that goods didnt reach there before 1920.
E. The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned
>>Irrelevant.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 882
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2016, 05:35
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.
(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!


Radiocarbon dating dates the site at 1605 to 1755. But the conclusion is that camp does not date later than 1630 because no european goods were found at the site, however, european traders were active in the region from 1620's onward.

Basically, no european goods were found concludes that the camp dates no later than 1630. We should have an option either to support this statement or to mention that european goods were found in all camp sites dates after 1930.

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did. This weakens 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. This is exactly what we were looking for.
(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. We are not concerned about valuable goods
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers. European explorers are not mentioned anywhere in the argument.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned. What are those few years?
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

1 KUDOS received
Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jan 2015
Posts: 82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2016, 02:37
1
Still don't understand why C is flawed. As for me the reasoning is the following:

1) Traders were active in the region starting with late 1620'. Therefore, since no goods were found in the camp, the camp must have been held before that period. We need to find something, that strengthens this point by either providing the additional evidence or by eliminating alternative reasons, why the goods were not found.

Option C states that - these goods were especially valuable and therefore there was no possibility that they were either lost or destroyed. Therefore, the only viable reason why the goods were not found in the camp - the camp was held before traders reached these lands.
So this option eliminates the an reason and therefore strengthens the argument.

Even though I agree that option B strengthens the argument too, I can't say that it strengthens the argument more than option C does. Moreover, from my experience, options that provide evidence from towns/villages/schools nearby are VERY RARELY the right choice.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Dec 2015
Posts: 89
GPA: 3.92
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2017, 05:52
manlog wrote:
Still don't understand why C is flawed. As for me the reasoning is the following:

1) Traders were active in the region starting with late 1620'. Therefore, since no goods were found in the camp, the camp must have been held before that period. We need to find something, that strengthens this point by either providing the additional evidence or by eliminating alternative reasons, why the goods were not found.

Option C states that - these goods were especially valuable and therefore there was no possibility that they were either lost or destroyed. Therefore, the only viable reason why the goods were not found in the camp - the camp was held before traders reached these lands.
So this option eliminates the an reason and therefore strengthens the argument.

Even though I agree that option B strengthens the argument too, I can't say that it strengthens the argument more than option C does. Moreover, from my experience, options that provide evidence from towns/villages/schools nearby are VERY RARELY the right choice.


If these goods were valuable, wouldn't the Native Americans bury these goods to preserve them? There is too much to assume in this answer choice. Always ignore such answer choices.

(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.
The stem says "the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found"
Radiocarbon dating is never going to be exact, the dates are always going to be an approximation, archaeologists wont be able to pin point the exact year, so GMAC takes advantage of this (just my POV).
_________________

If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 460
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2017, 15:57
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 point is out of scope since the arrival of europeans is not in the scope of 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.
The most relevant and strenthening option since all the camps near the site had european trade goods but not the one under scurtinization.so it must be that the camp was before the arrival of the european goods in the region.
(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.
The value of the first trade goods is not under discussion so out of scope.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
The arrival of europeans is not discussed in teh argument.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
The point that the site was used temporarily does not strengthen the argument.
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 140
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Feb 2018, 19:45
prateek176 wrote:
mikemcgarry, ChrisLele.. still stuck between A and B. A lil help!


Hi prateek176!

This is tricky. Let's take a look!

First, let's summarize what the argument is saying. It's arguing that if the camp was from a time later than 1630, then there would have also been European goods found, because starting in the 1620s, there was some European trading going on. Since no European goods were found, the camp must have been from before 1630 or so.

Now, let's look at what (A) says:

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

Remember, we're looking for something that strengthens the argument (that the camp existed before 1630, since no European goods were found). Choice (A) here essentially says that it's likely that European goods would have been around even before the 1620s. This is essentially a fact that just agrees with the argument -- it doesn't really provide anything new. The main premise of the argument still holds, and isn't really affected at all. If the European goods arrived a little earlier, then maybe the author could be a little more confident of the 1630 date, but it doesn't really address anything substantial here. The only thing that it could affect is the precise date (which isn't something that would really strengthen the argument, just modify it).

Choice (B), on the other hand, provides a clear refutation of a possible weakness of the argument. This is a very common theme for GMAT "strengthening" questions. Before reading the answer choices, see if you can come up with some obvious weaknesses of the argument. Here, one of those might be, well how do we know that the camps would necessarily have the European goods? Just because the traders were active in the area doesn't necessarily mean that the goods would necessarily show up at the camp. Choice (B) directly addresses, and refutes this. That's a clear indication of a "strengthener", and so it's the best answer choice here.

Hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn
_________________

Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1749
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2018, 16:29
1
saurabhbhargava wrote:
Please Help... I don't understand what it is saying in the premises and conclusion. How to approach this question?

saurabhbhargava, try starting with the conclusion, which is that "the camp probably dates to no later than 1630."

How does the author arrive at that conclusion?

  • "Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek." - In other words, the archaeologists have discovered the remains of a Native American camp.
  • "Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755." - Radiocarbon dating is one method for determining the age of the Native American camp. This method does not give us a specific year, but it indicates that the camp was actually used by Native Americans some time between 1605 and 1755.
  • "No European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward." - This evidence seems to suggest that the camp was not used after the 1620's. Why? Well, from the 1620's onward, European traders were active in the region. In that case, if the campsite were used some time after 1630 (approximately), we would expect to find European trade goods at the excavation site.
  • Based on this evidence, the author concludes that the camp probably dates to no later than 1630.

But is that evidence reliable? 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 European goods were not found does not necessarily mean that the camp was used before the traders were active.

Now you can try using POE to find an answer choice that strengthens the author's argument!

Let us know if you have additional questions.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1016
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2018, 18:22
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.
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1749
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2018, 16:38
adkikani wrote:
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 wrote:
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.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 76
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Apr 2018, 08:57
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani wrote:
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 wrote:
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.



GMATNinja , VeritasPrepKarishma , MagooshExpert

I have one query

The main reason why I eliminated option B was that option B says that "European goods have been found at all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's. I believe this rather narrows down the scope to only 1620s. It can very well mean that the site could have existed during the early 1700s.

Could you please help me on this one?
Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near   [#permalink] 03 Apr 2018, 08:57

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.