It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 09:16

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


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

Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 132

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 3

Premium Member
Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2013, 12:03
Quote:
I picked E.I think E is the correct answer.If i am wrong plz inform me where i am wrong


plz read the very first post of mine where i have written that : the argument is not about whether the scripts were written by European or African people
even if u say that Europeans were living in Africa it does not affect the conclusion :Clearly, all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.


we have to hit the conclusion as to whether all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.---->we are not bothered as who wrote them !!

look at the premises given
premise 1 : ink is same in all manuscripts
it is not given whether it is European ink or African ink ---> so this is where D comes into play which tells us that all if manuscripts were written in europe then the conclusion will fall apart

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 274

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 51

Schools: Booth,NUS,St.Gallon
Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2013, 20:52
An easier way to find an answer to this profound question is by negating the conclusion,which is based on a certain weak assumption.The author comes to the conclusion by assuming that the ink,which is same in all the scripts found,to be of the African-type.Hence he concludes that they were all written in Africa.This is an invalid assumption because the ink can also be of the type found in Europe.In that case all the scripts must have been transported from Europe. Hence option D.
Please note that nationality of the artisans does not matter.
_________________

+1 if you like my explanation .Thanks :)

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 51

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10197

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jan 2015, 17:07
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.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 20

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2015, 12:44
I feel the options B and D are debatable.. Conclusion is "all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa."

To explain a flaw we must pick the one that says no to the conclusion... But here they have also placed a info abt the inks used..

(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.---If the european manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa, then none of them are written in Africa(but the ink speaks they are written in africa, as europe uses different ink)
(D)it fails to consider the possibility that all manuscripts found during the excavations had been written in Europe.---Same here. If all manuscripts are written in europe, then none of them are written in Africa(but the ink speaks they are written in africa, as europe uses different ink)

What is this question about really? it confuses the whole thing..

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 20

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 340

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 403

GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2015, 05:07
guerrero25 wrote:
Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed manuscripts written in contemporary European languages, leading archeologists to hypothesize that some manuscripts were brought to Northern Africa from Europe. However, the chemical composition of ink used at that time in Northern Africa was significantly different from that of ink used in Europe, and all the manuscripts found during the excavations were written with the same type of ink. Clearly, all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the basis that
(A)it fails to establish whether European manuscripts of that time had previously been found in Northern Africa.

(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.

(C)it fails to consider the possibility that African scribes knew European languages of that time.

(D)it fails to consider the possibility that all manuscripts found during the excavations had been written in Europe.

(E)it fails to consider the possibility that European scribes could have lived in Northern Africa at that time.




[Reveal] Spoiler:
Explanation: The argument above concludes that all manuscripts found during the excavations were written in Africa because they were written with the same ink and ink used in Europe was significantly different from ink used in Northern Africa. This argument is flawed since, as stated in Choice D, it fails to consider the possibility that all the manuscripts were written in Europe, which is quite possible since the argument did not specify whether they were all written with the ink used in Africa or with the ink used in Europe.

A) Whether European manuscripts had previously been found in Northern Africa is irrelevant to the origin of the manuscripts discussed here.

B) The likelihood of European manuscripts being transported to Northern Africa does not affect the possibility that the manuscripts were all written in Northern Africa.

C) If African scribes had known European languages, it would have been even more likely that the manuscripts had been written in Northern Africa, not brought from Europe.

D) orrect. This correctly points out a flaw of the argument.

E) If European scribes had lived in Northern Africa, then it would have been even more likely that those manuscripts had been written there and not brought from Europe.



The argument assumes that since ALL the manuscripts are written with the same ink , ALL Manuscripts were necessarily written in Aftrica.

BUT the argument does not establish that the ink used was identical to African ink or European Ink.

Hence, it is open to debate and doubt.

Note that the conclusion is very strong-Clearly, all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.

(A)it fails to establish whether European manuscripts of that time had previously been found in Northern Africa.-

We are only interested in the manuscripts stated in the argument.

(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.

So what? Even if European Manuscripts were transported to North Africa, we are only interested in the ones found during the excavation. There may be European manuscripts somewhere but not excavated.There is a clear distinction between LIKELIHOOD AND EXACT OCCURRENCE.

(C)it fails to consider the possibility that African scribes knew European languages of that time.

We will need to make additional assumptions to link this to the conclusion.Infact, this strengthens the conclusion by saying that the Afrcian scribes used Afrcian ink to write European Manuscripts.

(D)it fails to consider the possibility that all manuscripts found during the excavations had been written in Europe.

This option clearly establishes that all the manuscripts could have been written in Europe with European Ink.Note the argument does not state the type of ink used to write the argument. The argument naively assumes that the ink is of type used in Africa.

(E)it fails to consider the possibility that European scribes could have lived in Northern Africa at that time.

So what?As long as they used Afrcian ink, the argument can get strengthened.
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 403

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: Target 760
Joined: 20 Aug 2014
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 71

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Economics
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.25
WE: Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2017, 01:29
guerrero25 wrote:
Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed manuscripts written in contemporary European languages, leading archeologists to hypothesize that some manuscripts were brought to Northern Africa from Europe. However, the chemical composition of ink used at that time in Northern Africa was significantly different from that of ink used in Europe, and all the manuscripts found during the excavations were written with the same type of ink. Clearly, all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the basis that
(A)it fails to establish whether European manuscripts of that time had previously been found in Northern Africa.- Ok! No value addition by this statement

(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.- So? We are talking of all.

(C)it fails to consider the possibility that African scribes knew European languages of that time.- But does it prove that they have written it? I know philosophy but does it mean I have written story of philosophy? Clearly not.

(D)it fails to consider the possibility that all manuscripts found during the excavations had been written in Europe. - Bang On! Written in Europe and all of them. Hit it and move.


(E)it fails to consider the possibility that European scribes could have lived in Northern Africa at that time.


Well, I am not an expert in the verbal section of GMAT but this question is quite logical. A has been found, but B suggests differently. On what basis? If we are successfully able to answer this question then we are through. The highlighted portion of the argument is where we should attack because that forms an evidence for conclusion. What if all the manuscripts found during excavation were written in Europe? This would clearly attack the highlighted argument and weaken the conclusion.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Explanation: The argument above concludes that all manuscripts found during the excavations were written in Africa because they were written with the same ink and ink used in Europe was significantly different from ink used in Northern Africa. This argument is flawed since, as stated in Choice D, it fails to consider the possibility that all the manuscripts were written in Europe, which is quite possible since the argument did not specify whether they were all written with the ink used in Africa or with the ink used in Europe.

A) Whether European manuscripts had previously been found in Northern Africa is irrelevant to the origin of the manuscripts discussed here.

B) The likelihood of European manuscripts being transported to Northern Africa does not affect the possibility that the manuscripts were all written in Northern Africa.

C) If African scribes had known European languages, it would have been even more likely that the manuscripts had been written in Northern Africa, not brought from Europe.

D) orrect. This correctly points out a flaw of the argument.

E) If European scribes had lived in Northern Africa, then it would have been even more likely that those manuscripts had been written there and not brought from Europe.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 71

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Apr 2017
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 112

Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 21:17
E is certainly not correct. If we consider that European scribes stayed in North Africa at that time, it does not harm the conclusion that the manuscripts were written in Africa.

B is not correct because it says that European manuscripts were imported from Europe but it is important that not just few or some but all manuscripts should be written in Europe to maintain uniformity of ink etc.

Only D, the most extreme option addresses it because it says that all manuscripts could have been written in Europe and were therefore, not written in N. Africa. This agrees with the evidence that the ink was uniform. It has also not been stated anywhere in the argument that the manuscripts were written in an ink used in Africa. It has only been said that the ink used in N. Africa was different from that in Europe, not that manuscripts were written in African or European variety of ink.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 112

Re: Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed   [#permalink] 23 Oct 2017, 21:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed

  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®.