Archaeologists use technology to analyze ancient sites. It is likely t

Question

Archaeologists use technology to analyze ancient sites. It is likely that this technology will advance considerably in the near future, allowing archaeologists to gather more information than is currently possible. If they study certain sites now, they risk contaminating or compromising them for future studies. Therefore, in order to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run, a team of archaeologists plans to delay the examination of a newly excavated site.

Which of the following would be most useful to investigate for the purpose of evaluating the plan’s prospects for achieving its goal?

A. Whether any of the contents of the site will significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available
 B. Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology
 C. Whether the team can study a site other than the newly excavated site for the time being
 D. Whether the site was inhabited by a very ancient culture
 E. Whether the anticipated technology will damage objects under study

ID - CR09963

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Note that you don't know what the current technology does. What if all tech that analyses objects damages them in some way. The argument says that they risk contaminating or compromising if they study right now. It could mean a lot of things. Just knowing what the new tech will do, we cannot decide whether to delay or not.

Besides, the goal is to maximise the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run. So the question is whether we should examine the site right now or later to maximise the potential for gaining knowledge. If examining later has higher potential of giving more knowledge, delaying is better. Once the knowledge is gathered using new technology, what happens to the object is not a part of the goal. Hence, it is important to ensure that the objects do not deteriorate significantly before knowledge can be gained from them.

egmat · Answer

Passage Analysis     
 Archaeologists use technology to analyze ancient sites. It is likely that this technology will advance considerably in the near future, 
Technology is used by archaeologists to examine ancient sites. There are chances that this technology will develop considerably in the near future.

allowing archaeologists to gather more information than is currently possible. 
Once this technology develops to its expected level, it will allow archaeologist to obtain more information from the sites than they can currently do.

If they study certain sites now, they risk contaminating or compromising them for future studies. 
If they analyze certain sites now, they might contaminate these sites or somehow tamper with them, jeopardizing their future study of these sites.

Therefore, in order to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run, a team of archaeologists plans to delay the examination of a newly excavated site. 
 Conclusion : A team of archaeologists has planned to defer/postpone the examination of a newly excavated site because it wants to maximize the potential for amassing knowledge in the long run with the help of a soon-to-be-available-technology.

Question Stem Analysis  
Which of the following would be most useful to investigate for the purpose of evaluating the plan’s prospects for achieving its goal?

The answer to which of the options will be most useful in determining the chances of the archaeologists’ plan achieving its goal.

Prethinking

Falsification question

In what scenario will the archaeologists not be able to maximize their potential for gathering knowledge in the long run?
Given that
 Technology is used by archaeologists to examine ancient sites
 Chances are this technology will develop considerably in the near future.
 Once it does, archaeologist will be able to obtain more information from the sites than they can 
 currently do
 If they analyze certain sites now, they might contaminate these sites or somehow tamper with 
 them, jeopardizing their future study of these sites.

Thought Process

The reasoning of the author is based on a certain expectancy that a certain type of technology will develop considerably in the near future. And the application of this technology will allow archaeologists to gather more knowledge from the site. Therefore, the archeologists have decided to forgo examining the site now.

Falsification condition:

What if the excavated site even if left untouched undergoes some kind of irreversible change/damage before the advent of the new technology?

Let us say that excavation has now exposed the site to open air. Maybe some sort of pollutant, etc may cause changes to the site to an extent that future technology, by the time it becomes available, will not be able to extract much of information/knowledge.

Assumption

If the site is left untouched now, it will not undergo any damage or change till the time the new technology becomes available in the future.

Answer Choices

Option A

This evaluation question asks if any of the contents/items on the site will be significantly harmed/damaged before the the expected-to-be-developed technology comes into action.

Now this evaluation question is in line with our pre-thinking assumption which says the site will not undergo any change/damage till the time the new technology becomes available.

Let us put the answer to this evaluation question through the variance analysis.

No: The contents of the site will NOT significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available
In that case our belief in the archaeologists’ decision to forgo the analysis now will be strengthened.

Yes: The contents of the site WILL significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available
In that case our belief in the archaeologists’ decision to forgo the analysis now will be weakened.

This option passes the variance test and is the correct answer.

Option B

The question is a simple one.

The answer is also provided for in the passage. Refer to “It is likely that this technology will advance considerably in the near future”

The conclusion that we need to evaluate it – whether delaying the evaluation to the near future will maximize the potential for extracting information when it’s given (or taken as fact) that the technology will improve considerably in near future. Whether the technology improves beyond the that is not in the scope if this argument Hence, it is not the answer.

Option C

Let us say the team does decide to study another site in the meantime. Does that impact their plans for the newly excavated site? No. It still remains the same.

Hence, not the correct answer.

Option D

This is out of the scope of the argument. Anyways it is given that these archaeologists analyse ancient sites. Even if this site was not inhabited by any ancient culture, it will not impact my argument.

Hence, it is not the correct choice.

Option E 
It is given that the anticipated technology will allow the archaeologists to gather more information. Hence, we cannot falsify this.

Hence, this is not the correct choice.

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

PREMISE: Archaeologists use technology
PREMISE: Future technology will facilitate more discoveries
PREMISE: Studying sites now could compromise future discoveries at site
CONCLUSION:  Delaying examination of site will maximize potential for discoveries at site

Let's check the answer choices While also reminding ourselves what the conclusion is...

A) Would the results of this investigation help us determine whether or not  delaying examination of the site will maximize potential for discoveries ?
YES!
If the contents of the site DO significantly deteriorate, then delaying examination of the site will NOT maximize the potential for discoveries.
If the contents of the site do NOT significantly deteriorate, then delaying examination of the site WILL maximize the potential for discoveries.
So knowing the answer to this question will definitely help us evaluate the conclusion.
KEEP A

B) Would the results of this investigation help us determine whether or not  delaying examination of the site will maximize potential for discoveries ?
The passage already tells us of that "it is likely that this technology will advance considerably in the near future." So answer choice B addressing whether the technology will continue to improve BEYOND the near future.
In this case the results of such an investigation would not help us evaluate the conclusion because the passage already states that technology will likely advance considerably in the near future.
ELIMINATE B

C) Would the results of this investigation help us determine whether or not  delaying examination of the site will maximize potential for discoveries ?
NO.
Whether or not the team has something to keep itself occupied with has no bearing on whether or not new technologies will better help them examine the site in question.
ELIMINATE C

D) Would the results of this investigation help us determine whether or not  delaying examination of the site will maximize potential for discoveries ?
NO.
Whether or not we're dealing with a very ancient culture has no bearing on whether the delay will help the team make more discoveries
ELIMINATE D

E) Would the results of this investigation help us determine whether or not  delaying examination of the site will maximize potential for discoveries ?
NO.
This is a tricky one. We must keep in mind that the conclusion is all about whether or not the team will be able to make more discoveries in the future than presently. Sure some stuff might get broken in the process, But the plot passage already tells us that advanced technologies will allow archaeologists to gather more information.
ELIMINATE E

Answer: A

Cheers,
Brent

pushpitkc · Answer

From my understanding of the argument, the reason why the archaeologists want to delay examination 
of this newly excavated site is that while examining the site(before the necessary technology is available)
, it is possible to contaminate of the existing site such that it can't be used for any further research.

In evaluate the argument type of questions,
a YES to the question being asked must increase the validity of the conclusion, 
while NO must undermine the conclusion. 
OR
a NO to the question being asked must increase the validity of the conclusion, 
while YES must undermine the conclusion.

An answer 'NO' for Option A will mean that the archaeologists needn't wait for the technology 
to be made available, since the site will remain as it is post the examination. 
On the contrary a 'YES'(if the contents on the site deteriorates) we have to wait for the technology to be available.

chesstitans · Answer

I disagree with all threads posted above because all of you have not given any satisfying replies. C,D are out of scope, but B and E may still be true. Nevertheless, only A is the most useful to evaluate. 
My 2 cents: "to maximize" weakens E. 
B is not as strong as A is.

adkikani · Answer

Hi  VeritasPrepKarishma

Conclusion : team of archaeologists plans to delay the examination of a newly excavated site.

Premise : Unlikelihood of advancements in technology may lead to no additional information than is 
available to archaeologists.

As per variance test, I selected (A) as OA.

Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology

if answer to this Q is  Yes , then archaeologists'  can  plan to delay the excavation 
if answer to this Q is  No , then archaeologists'  need not  plan delay the excavation.

Let me know any conceptual mistake from mine end.
WR,
Arpit

KarishmaB · Answer

I am not sure I understand the logic you have used. The argument tells us that it is likely this tech will advance considerably. So it has to be taken to be true. 
(A) says "whether any of the contents of the site will significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available"

If "Yes", contents of the site will deteriorate, we may actually get less information by waiting. So delay may not be a good idea.
If "No", contents of the site will not deteriorate, we could wait or the tech to be available.

sevenplusplus · Answer

I was also torn between A & E.
How did you eliminate E? If the new advanced technology "damages objects under study", it would not "maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run" -- the purpose of the plan.

abhimahna · Answer

Hi  sevenplusplus  ,

The plan is to delay the studies. This is based on the premise that "If they study certain sites now, they risk contaminating or compromising them for future studies.".

Now let's talk about E.

It says future technologies can damage objects under study. But does that mean we will not be able to get what we want? Is the damage happening after the study or during the study? I know you are assuming that if they get damaged, how will not get the maximize the potential for gathering knowledge. It may happen that the new technology could give us everything we want and hence, we don't care about saving those.

Also, by long run the author meant till we don't have the new technology. Now that we have got those technologies, I seriously don't care what happens to those objects once I get what I want. Hence, E is not a good answer choice.

A is actually telling us that if they don't deteriorate before our study then the plan is not a good plan. And if they do, then the plan is a good plan.

I hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask any questions if you have.

Bikki · Answer

Understanding the passage

Archaeologists use technology to analyze ancient sites.

• To analyze ancient sites, archaeologists use technology.
 It is likely that this technology will advance considerably in the near future, allowing archaeologists to gather more information than is currently possible.

• It is possible that the technology used for analyzing ancient sites will greatly develop in the future.
• Once there is a development in technology, it will allow archaeologists to collect more information from ancient sites than they can now.
• Inference: Currently, archaeologists are not able to collect as much information as the technological advances in the near future can provide from ancient sites.
 If they study certain sites now, they risk contaminating or compromising them for future studies.

• If the archaeologists’ study certain sites now, they might contaminate or jeopardize their study of these sites in the future because the current technology is not sufficient to help analyze the ancient site to the extent that would be possible in the future using the developed technology.
• Note the word “certain” used in the sentence; we can understand from the use of this word that not all sites are prone to the risk of contamination or compromise from future studies.
 Therefore, in order to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run, a team of archaeologists plans to delay the examination of a newly excavated site.

• Since it is not possible to gather “more” information using the current technology, to maximize the possibility of gathering as much knowledge as possible in the long run, with the use of the soon-to-be-available technology, a team of archaeologists has planned to postpone the examination of the newly excavated site.

Conclusion:  A team of archaeologists has planned to postpone the examination of newly excavated sites to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run, with the use of the soon-to-be-available technology.

Pre-thinking

Falsification scenario

In what scenario  – would a team of archaeologists   NOT   be able to maximize their potential for gathering knowledge in the long run by postponing the examination of newly excavated sites.
  Given that:  
(i) Technology is used by archaeologists to examine ancient sites.
(ii) There is a chance that the technology will develop considerably in the near future.
(iii) The developed technology will help archaeologists obtain more information from the sites than they can obtain currently.
(iv) If the archaeologists analyze certain ancient sites now, they might contaminate or tamper with these sites, jeopardizing future study of these sites.

Though Process 
The reasoning of the author is based on the development of certain technology, which, once developed, will help archaeologists gather more information from ancient sites. Thus, the archaeologists have decided to postpone the examining the newly excavated site now as studying them sooner may contaminate and jeopardize future observations.

Falsification condition:  What if the newly excavated site is damaged due to other factors before the new technology is developed?
If the newly excavated site is damaged due to corrosive weather, pollution, etc. then the archaeologists will not be able to extract more information using the soon-to-be-available technology. Therefore, the author’s conclusion will break.

Assumption:   The site will not undergo any change or damage until the new technology becomes available in the future.

Answer Choice Analysis

A. Whether any of the contents of the site will significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available   CORRECT  
• This evaluation question is in line with our pre-thinking assumption, which states that the site will not undergo any change or damage until the soon-to-be-developed technology is available.
• Variance test
o Yes – The site will go through significant deterioration before the anticipated technology is available.
o In this case, our belief in the conclusion of the author is weakened.
o No - The site will not go through significant deterioration before the anticipated technology is available.
o In this case, our belief in the conclusion of the author is strengthened.

B. Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology   INCORRECT  
• The answer to this question is already provided in the passage.
• This information, however, does not impact the conclusion. Therefore, this choice is out of scope.

C. Whether the team can study a site other than the newly excavated site for the time being   INCORRECT  
• Even if the team can study another site, for the time being, it does not affect the plans for the newly excavated site. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

D. Whether the site was inhabited by a very ancient culture   INCORRECT  
• It is already given that archaeologists examine ancient sites. Also, this information does not affect the conclusion.

E. Whether the anticipated technology will damage objects under study   INCORRECT  
• The passage already states that the anticipated technology will allow archaeologists to gather more information than they currently can. Therefore, we cannot falsify this information in the variance test.

NikhilPS · Answer

Why is C not considered?
I interpret C as, "What if the team has no other site that they can study other than the newly excavated site? The archaeologists would not be in a position to delay the examination of newly excavated site." 
What is wrong in my interpretation?

Option C is weaker in comparison to A but it is certainly better than E (I see a lot of people debating A vs E) and most certainly not an Out of Scope kinda option.

GMATNinja · Answer

The question asks which answer choice would be most useful to evaluate  the plan’s prospects for achieving its goal . So, the first step is to identify the plan’s goal. In this case, archaeologists plan to delay examination “ in order to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the long run .”

With that in mind, let’s consider (C):

This could certainly have an impact on the archaeologists’ employment prospects while waiting for the new technology, and it could even mean that some archaeologists would not be in favor of a delay. But remember the plan’s goal. Whether the team can find work in the meantime does not impact the delay’s ability to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge. In other words, just because archaeologists are out of work until the new technology is developed does not mean that the plan will fail to increase knowledge in the long-run. For that reason, (C) has no bearing on whether the plan will achieve its goal, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

Vegita · Answer

Hi  AndrewN ,

After reading all the posts, I am still not finding the reasons provided to eliminate options B and E justifiable enough.

B. Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology

Some users have stated that this information is already stated in the passage, quoting "...It is  likely  that this technology will advance considerably in the near future.."

The word "likely' is a probability and not a guarantee. Therefore, we can't say that option B provides us with information that's already provided in the passage. My reasoning to eliminate option B was there does not need to be continued improvements. There can be just one improvement that can be significant enough to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge.

E. Whether the anticipated technology will damage objects under study

We know from the passage that the archaeologists will be able to gather more information than is currently possible. Therefore, damaging the objects is not our concern. 
However, it is understandable why many users are confused with this option too. As it is commonsensical to think that archaeologists might not able to maximize the potential for gathering knowledge since the objects will be damaged.

I chose option A because the question asks "Which of the following would be  most useful  to investigate for the purpose of evaluating the plan’s prospects for achieving its goal?".

Let me know your thoughts on this.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Vegita . I agree with your reasoning on both answer choices, although I would add that  damaging the objects  is at least a pertinent concern. Why? Because the premise that leads to the conclusion says that archaeologists using the currently available technology to study sites  risk contaminating or compromising  those sites. I think we can reasonably interpret  compromising  as  damaging  in some way. However, the amount of damage that  anticipated technology  may cause cannot be known or compared in any meaningful way to the damage that current technology is known to cause, so answer choice (E) is a bit of a nonstarter. We would need a lot more information before the statement could be called  most useful  to investigate. In any case, if you have no scruples about (A), then you should go with the safe bet. Never chase another answer choice just because it could be true.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Sneha2021 · Answer

Hi Experts,
 AndrewN   KarishmaB   GMATNinja

A. Whether any of the contents of the site will significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available

I was confused with the impact of word "significantly" on the overall plan
1)Site will significantly deteriorate - In this case, it doesn't make sense to delay the examination
2)Site will " not significantly" deteriorate - But still site will deteriorate, so again weakens the argument
How to tackle such confusion?

E. Whether the anticipated technology will damage objects under study
If the objects are damaged, then we won't be able to use it again in most cases. And goal is maximize the potential for gathering knowledge in the "long run", so this would weaken the argument. 
If the objects are not damaged, then we can use it in the long run. It strengthens the argument.

Thank you for your help!

KarishmaB · Answer

Think about it - time causes deterioration in every object. It could be fast or slow but everything deteriorates. Usually, we can't say that the object will not deteriorate in the next few years. We can say that it will not deteriorate significantly i.e. it will make no difference to us. If this is the case, then delaying examination will improve the knowledge we gain because the anticipated technology is expected to be a whole lot more advance. So overall, we will gain more knowledge.
But if the objects will deteriorate significantly, then they may end up giving us less knowledge even with the advance tech. 
Hence option (A) is correct.

As for (E), note that we don't know what any current examination does to the object. What if every examination damages the object? 
We know that current examination methods involve the risk of contaminating or compromising the site. We are willing to wait for the advance tech only because it is anticipated soon (perhaps its trials are going on ) We cannot keep waiting for better and better tech forever. "In the long run" means overall, not just getting maximum knowledge right now.

sriharsha4444 · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATNinja

regarding 
B. Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology

This sounds like whether there will continue to be improvements on relevant technology from present to the future self. It seems like no to this question makes us believe less in the argument and yes to this increase our belief that delay can potentially lead to maximizing the knowledge gained. Can you please explain ?

KarishmaB · Answer

We need to keep the scope of the argument in mind. The argument is comparing "now" vs "in the near future" 
So there is something happening which is expected to bring in advancement in the NEAR future. The author is discussing whether it is prudent to wait for this event in the "near future" to take place and then analyse. 
There will always be advancement out in the future. In that case, you will never analyse it.

You can use the yes/no test on (B).

Question: Should we evaluate NOW or DELAY the examination of the site?

Evaluate: Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology

Yes, tech will continue improving: Looks like delaying is a good idea.
No, after improvement in the near future, tech will be perfect: Looks like delaying is a good idea.

Kavicogsci · Answer

Hi - Got this option wrong and here was my reasoning

GMATNinjaTwo   MartyMurray 
A. Whether any of the contents of the site will significantly deteriorate before the anticipated technology is available
B. Whether there will continue to be improvements on the relevant technology

Eliminated option 1 because it says 'any of the contents' what if its fine if a trivial content of the site deteriotes, that could still help us maximise info on imp parts?

Chose Option 2 because passage says tech 'likey' to improve - but if I answer No to this answer choice there is no need to wait and if i choose yes then makes sense to wait?

Let me know

Archaeologists use technology to analyze ancient sites. It is likely t

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 use technology to analyze ancient sites. It is likely t

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