It is currently 21 Apr 2018, 16:17

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 seeking the location of a legendary siege and

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

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 826
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2006, 21:27
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (01:28) correct 51% (01:56) wrong based on 201 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?

(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.

Please give reasons for your choices...

linked question:
http://gmatclub.com/forum/archaeologist ... 44157.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1116
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2006, 22:17
I am for C, but I am not really sure.

I choose C because there is a connection between lower layers and middle layers in C.

I don't quite understand the stimulus. Is there even a conclusion?
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 980
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2006, 22:29
tennis_ball wrote:
I am for C, but I am not really sure.

I choose C because there is a connection between lower layers and middle layers in C.

I don't quite understand the stimulus. Is there even a conclusion?


I guess the stimulus is incomplete.. :wink:
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 826
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2006, 09:47
The OA is A...The stimulus is complete and its left that way to confuse us so that the lower layer is open for interpretations even though there is nothing in it.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 665
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2006, 10:56
ak_idc wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?
(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.

Gerbils can distort the evidence. If the pieces of pottery of later period falls into middle layer, then perspectives of archaeologists can get distorted. My answer.

(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.

Please give reasons for your choices...



Yes it should be A. Good Analysis.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 68
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.56
WE: Marketing (Telecommunications)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2014, 08:25
i dont get it .. the question asks which statement would weaken the evidence given A is not weakening the evidence its strenthening it .. its saying that the items found in Middle layer are infact from a later date

Pls help
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: 2 months to go
Joined: 11 Oct 2015
Posts: 133
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.8
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2016, 11:46
The question's OA is indeed A

Added to the 1st post, as well as the link to the twin question.

Den
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2747
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Nov 2016, 08:44
vineetgupta wrote:
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?
(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.

Please give reasons for your choices...

linked question:
archaeologists-seeking-the-location-of-a-legendary-siege-and-44157.html


looks like a very tricky question...what do we have to weaken? from the given argument, it might be inferred that the archaeologists are digging on the right site...
all but A actually support this idea, whereas A says that pottery might have gotten in the lower levels by accident.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Posts: 23
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18, IIMA PGPX"18
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V38
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2016, 00:56
The conclusion here is that the middle layer doesnt belong to siege and destroyed city.
Evidence is that there exist type 3 pottery in middle layer.
A says that its possible that these type 3 pottery is among the objects fell in the areas dig by Gerbils. This definitely can weaken the conclusion.
B mentions lower level, so cant weaken the conclusion.
C shows middle and lower layers may be related but doesnt hurt the conclusion. they both could be part of siege city or couldnt.
D says destruction caused by fire but no evidence of siege.
E again mentions lower level, so cant weaken the conclusion.
2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 515
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Dec 2017, 02:40
2
This post received
KUDOS
vineetgupta wrote:
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?

(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.

Please give reasons for your choices...

linked question:
http://gmatclub.com/forum/archaeologist ... 44157.html
Here the conclusion is 'the bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, but the lower layer does not'.

We need to weaken this conclusion, showing that the bottom of the middle layer does not contain some pieces of pottery of type 3 or that the lower layer contains pottery of type 3.

Option A, clearly says that pottery of type 3 is not belong to the middle layer. It is from upper layer. So A is winner.
_________________

Hasan Mahmud

Re: Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and   [#permalink] 11 Dec 2017, 02:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.