Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destructi

Question

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.

Same stem Strengthen question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/archaeologis ... 44157.html

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

"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."

They are excavating the middle and lower layers of a mound. No mention is made of the upper layer but we can assume there must be one since there is a "middle" layer. Depending on where they find the remains, they can find the location of siege and destruction.

"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."

So the bottom of the middle layer has stuff from the later period (after the siege and destruction). One would naturally assume that the siege must have happened at the time of the lower layer then and the middle layer must have formed after the destruction. That is why the middle layer contains artefacts from the later period. Hence, destruction may not have happened at the time of the middle layer.

Before we move on to the options, note why excavating layers can tell us when the destruction took place. The mound would have formed over centuries. The lower layer would contain remains of life and other elements which were present during that time. Over time, dirt would settle and higher layers would contain remains from a later period. so the lower you dig, the more you can find about how life was in the older days.

Now let's go on to the options. We need one that weakens the force of the evidence i.e. that tells us that the destruction may not have happened in the lower layer or may have happened in the middle layer.

(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
This brings into question the period in which the siege happened. It is possible that the siege happened in the middle layer and the artefact was in the upper layer but a gerbil dropped it in the bottom of the middle layer. Then the period of the siege cannot be guessed. So the force of the given evidence is weakened.

(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.
This fortifies the idea that the siege took place at the time of the lower level. We need to weaken the evidence but this in fact strengthens it somewhat.

(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
Stones of lower layer have been found in middle layer. This doesn't impact our siege/destruction timeline as such. Did the siege take place at the time of the lower layer and the wall was damaged in it? How did the stones reach the middle layer. Too nebulous.

(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
Two layers show evidence of destruction by fire. The time of the destruction is not clear then.

(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.
This fortifies the idea that the siege took place at the time of the lower layer. We need to weaken the evidence but this in fact strengthens it somewhat.

Answer (A)

HaileyCusimano · Answer

Certainly,  vasuca10 .

I would agree that this question is tricky... and in a way that is unusual (though not completely unseen) for official questions. The argument doesn't quite state the conclusion, but rather, leaves it pretty powerfully implied. There's actually another question of the same stem that asks us to infer the conclusion... so it's almost as if they're hoping you'll take that step and *then* find what weakens this inferred conclusion. That said, we can almost think of this question as a "plan of action" question, wherein the "conclusion" is the objective or goal of the archaeologists and the "plan" is the evidence used to achieve that goal. We want something that tells us that the archaeologists may not be able to reliably find the site/period of the city's siege using the archaeological artifacts found in specific layers of the mound. (Though the argument seems to point more specifically to whether or not we can use the middle layer artifacts to conclude that the siege did not take place in the middle layer.)

The archaeologists are trying to find the location of the cite where this city was destroyed. They use the evidence that "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." So, they are using this evidence to conclude that the destroyed city must not have been located at the middle layer of the mound (since evidence exists pointing to a later civilization at that time and location). If you're having a hard time connecting those elements, check out  this inference example  of the same stem.

So, we're looking for something that tells us that just because this evidence of a later period at the middle layer of mound 3 exists, we don't necessarily know that the siege could not have taken place at this period, and thus this layer of archaeological evidence.

Let's take a look at the answers:

Hmm... if we have reason to believe that the evidence obtained by these archaeologists came from a higher layer and had some other way to make their way to the layer in which they were found - this weakens the conclusion that this layer could not have been the site of the siege. For instance, perhaps the evidence of the later period *was* in the upper layer, or even at the time the surface of the ground, but the burrowing of these animals dropped the artifacts down into a layer that does not represent the time period the artifacts were from. This weakens the force of the evidence, telling us that we cannot necessarily use the location of the artifacts to connect to the time period of the layers of the mound. This one looks great! Let's have a look at the others!

This seems to strengthen the idea that the siege must have taken place at a lower level than the middle layer... so it certainly doesn't weaken the force of the existing evidence. This answer provides additional, aligning evidence! Definitely not what we want.

Okay... so there were stone pieces from an older wall incorporated in the remains of s middle-layer wall. Did they borrow found remains at the time to construct the new wall? Preserve artifacts from an older time within those walls? This one doesn't seem to connect to the siege timeline at all, and definitely doesn't tell us "we can't necessarily say the siege didn't occur during the middle layer" even though "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." We need something that specifically weakens the force of our evidence. This one's out.

Totally irrelevant to us here. The fact that both layers show evidence of fire-based destruction does nothing to tell us whether the evidence previously referenced in the argument supports when the siege could have (and more specifically, could not have) taken place.

Like (B), this one seems to strengthen the idea that the siege took place during the lower level - the opposite of what we're looking for here.

We want something that tells us that it does not make sense to use the evidence given to conclude the period and location of the siege. Of our options, only (A) does so, as it tells us that the evidence presented might not give a reliable indication of the layer in which it should rightfully belong.

So, if we recognize that we need to weaken the force of the evidence that "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" to draw conclusions about the layer of the siege or, more specifically, to rule out a layer - only (A) provides us with a fact that would weaken this connection.

I hope this helps!

mvictor · Answer

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.

deenesh2309 · Answer

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.

Mahmud6 · Answer

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.

NonPlus · Answer

We are not provided with a conclusion, so we have to draw one based on the evidence.

Evidence: Bottom of middle layer contains pottery 3. Pottery 3 is made AFTER the destruction.

We can infer that usually the deeper the level = the older the time period. Since as we move forward in time, we generally build up on things. So, the city was probably destroyed around the lower layer, or in the middle layer but beneath where the pottery was found.

Question: What casts doubt on the Type 3 pottery in the middle layer/destruction of city inference?

Prediction: If the pottery was moved around — if the location doesn’t represent the time period accurately.

A – decent choice, shows pottery could’ve been moved
B – doesn’t comment on Type 3 pottery
C – this implies at some point the middle-layer people used the wall below them to build up — but doesn’t show that the pottery could have moved down or up
D – Fire is totally irrelevant
E – “at the time of the siege” is vague — and this doesn’t relate at all to the pottery evidence

The correct answer is (A).

Skywalker18 · Answer

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.

- Firstly, there is no conclusion in this passage and we are asked to weaken an evidence.

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasKarishma  ,  ChiranjeevSingh  ,  VeritasPrepBrian  ,  MartyMurray  other experts - please provide a solution for this question.

MagooshExpert · Answer

Hi  Skywalker18 ,

In my opinion, this is a pretty bad question. You are correct -- no conclusion here is given. It seems that this question was written as a follow-up to a question asking about the conclusion of the argument (which would not happen on the real GMAT). To answer this, we need to first determine the most likely conclusion, which is that the middle layer does not represent the period of the siege. Given that, A is the best answer, since it provides an alternate reason for why pottery from after that period would be seen in the middle layer. But again, in my experience this type of question would not be asked on the GMAT.

Hope that helps!
-Carolyn

chrtpmdr · Answer

Anyone has a opinion on the quality of this question? CR is usually one of my strongest sections but after reading the prompt three times I still could not properly comprehend what is even in question.

It feels like some minor background knowledge could be needed to come up with a proper solution.

Any thoughts?

GMATNinja 
 daagh

vasuca10 · Answer

VeritasPrepHailey  mam this question clean bowled me completely....seems like a damn tricky question to me even higher than 700 plus level...I am unable to understand what needs to be weakened and comprehend this one mam...Please explain with POE

CEdward · Answer

This was an odd one. And the answer was so obvious that it seemed wrong.

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.
Correct. The question is, why didn't the pottery of type 3 make it to the lower levels if it was found in the bottom of the middle layer? The fact that gerbils dig large burrows (into which objects can fall) gives us more reason to doubt the fact that the pottery didn't make it there.

(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.
We care about pottery of type 3.

(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer. 
Trap choice, uses the wording 'lower' and 'middle' to tease us into thinking it's the answer. But look closely, we have a piece of stone from a lower-layer wall were incorporated into the middle layer of the remains of a building. This does nothing for us in terms of doubting why objects did not make it to the bottom layer.

(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
Irrelevant.

(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.
OK, irrelevant.

straykid · Answer

In reply to the Magoosh expert above who says that this question is "bad" and wouldn't show up on the GMAT, and adds that GMATs don't use two questions with one stimulus, I would suggest that the Magoosh expert go dig into old paper tests, which is where this question, and its fraternal twin, were taken from! Fun fact: on old GMAT paper tests, sometimes there were two questions written based on one stimulus. This is, in fact, a real GMAT question. It's just very, very old. Very very very very old. But it was in the same test as questions that I've seen in later OG books.

It doesn't have a conclusion but the question stem doesn't ask to strengthen the argument. The stem says "The force of the evidence would be weakened if...." which is a distinct stem from the usual weakener.

Also, the other question, which the OP called a strengthener, is an inference, not a strengthener.

It doesn't have a conclusion but the question stem doesn't ask to strengthen the argument. The stem says "The force of the evidence would be weakened if...." which is a distinct stem from the usual weakener.

Also, the other question, which the OP called a strengthener, is an inference, not a strengthener.

pratyush86 · Answer

Pre thinking - Since the artifacts are found in the bottom of middle layer but not in lower layer so chances are that these were brought there.

A - In line with pre-thinking

B - Out of scope

C - Strong contender but I went with A.

D and E - Out of scope

Saupayan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB ,
 
About your explanation of A, why are you concerned with "the period of the siege"? The first line of the passage states "Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege". It is about the LOCATION, the PERIOD. Your explanation makes sense wrt PERIOD, but I have no idea how the mound layer has anything to do with location (assuming layers form on top of each other, the location is the same for each layer).

KarishmaB · Answer

The question stem asks us to weaken the force of the evidence.
The evidence gives us the period of the destruction, not its location. So to weaken the force of the evidence, we need to weaken that destruction happened at the time of the lower layer.
We need to focus on what exactly the question stem asks. The argument could give us extraneous information.

Posted from my mobile device

Saupayan · Answer

The question stem asks us to weaken the force of the evidence.
The evidence gives us the period of the destruction, not its location. So to weaken the force of the evidence, we need to weaken that destruction happened at the time of the lower layer. 
We need to focus on what exactly the question stem asks. The argument could give us extraneous information.
 
 KarishmaB

I feel like this is going into "spam" territory at this point, so I will try to keep this as short as I can. First of all, thanks a lot for your clarification. Just to confirm I understand it right, I am going to state the 2 inferences I drew from what you said. Please correct me if I am wrong.
1. Archaeologists seeking the  location  of a legendary siege... has NO BEARING on this question whatsoever. 
 1a. The reasoning and the answer will be exactly the same even if the entire first line is taken away and the question stem began with "Archaeologists  seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city  are excavating in several possible places..."
2. force of the  evidence  cited above is most seriously weakened... 
 2a. we do not get to assume that just because scientists were looking for location, the "evidence" must somehow be connected to the location. 
 2b. Moreover, the passage DOES NOT mention what it is evidence for. 
 2c. So, we need to assume (based on common sense) that it is an assumption for the time period because that's how layers of dust build up over time.

Are these correct?
Thanks so much again for your time

KarishmaB · Answer

No, your questions are not in spam territory. They are genuine.

Here is the thing - the argument will set a context. It has to tell you that the archaeologists are digging looking for certain information. They are looking for the location of the destruction. That is why they are digging the mound. So the first statement serves a purpose - it sets a context on why they are digging in the first place.

In the process, they discovered some objects. 
The "evidence" tells you that some objects of a time after the destruction were found in lower middle layer while they were digging but were not found in the lower layer. So what can you INFER from this (not assume)? That perhaps the destruction took place at the time before the lower middle layer was formed. You cannot infer anything about the location of the destruction but you can about the time period.

The question stem asks us to weaken the force of this evidence. Then what will we weaken? Whatever this evidence tells us. We are not given anything about finding any objects from the city that was destroyed and hence we have no info on the location of the destruction. We focus on what the question asks us.

Option (A) clearly weakens the force of evidence and hence is the answer.

Paras96 · Answer

Option (A)  weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the presence of pottery type 3 in the middle layer. Gerbils digging burrows and causing objects to fall into different layers could indeed account for the presence of pottery type 3 in the middle layer. This undermines the argument's reliance on the pottery evidence to determine the timing of the destruction.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destructi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destructi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards