It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 15:16

### 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 seeking the location of a legendary siege and

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 1

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 08:09
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 14 May 2009
Posts: 141

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 29

Schools: AGSM '16

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 08:55
IMO C

The pieces of pottery of type 3 excavated from the middle layer support the argument that it represents a time period other than when the siege and destruction took place.

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 29

Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 10:12

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 13:00
trainspotting 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.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.

I would go with (C) based on the given info & no external assumptions. If the middle layer contains artifacts which belonged to a later period of time, then that layer probably does not represent siege.

A - We don't know this, since we're not given any info on what was found on the bottom layer.
B - We don't know this either, we're not given any info on the accuracy of the legend.
D - The info does not discuss how long the siege lasted. Besides, the artifact found was known to be from a period AFTER the siege, so it doesn't matter how long the siege itself lasted.
E - Again, we don't know this from the given info.

So (C) is my best guess.

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 103

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

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 16:34
I'm with C too.

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

Re: Seige   [#permalink] 27 Jun 2009, 16:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by