Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed

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.

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.

I still feel like this question deserves a second look/expert reply...

GMATNinja , nightblade354 you might want to give this one a shot

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Could you come in with your analysis...I am confused with this one...
Thanks

- Manuscripts written in European languages were found in N Africa so archeologists hypothesised that SOME manuscripts were brought in from Europe.
- Chemical composition of European ink and African ink was quite different.
- ALL manuscripts use the same kind of ink (whether African or European is not known)

Conclusion - All manuscripts were written in Northern Africa.

This is flawed. Just because all manuscripts have the same kind of ink, we cannot say for sure that they were written in N Africa. It is possible that ALL were written in Europe and brought to N Africa.

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

(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.
The argument is giving reasoning against this hypothesis. It does not need to assign a probability to the other scenario.

(C)it fails to consider the possibility that African scribes knew European languages of that time.
If these manuscripts were written in N Africa, it is possible that the African scribes knew European languages of that time. Hence it is not a flaw of the argument.

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

(E)it fails to consider the possibility that European scribes could have lived in Northern Africa at that time.
The argument only says that the manuscripts were written in N Africa. Whether European or African scribes wrote them is irrelevant.

Answer (D)

VeritasKarishma..
Thanks for coming in..However I am still unable to find out the flaw in (b)..It seems similar to (d)..What if all the manuscripts were written in Europe and then brought to Africa..subsequently they might have been buried here

Focus on the question: We need the FLAW in author's REASONING.

What is the author's reasoning?

The chemical composition of ink used at that time in Northern Africa was significantly different from that of ink used in Europe
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.

What is the flaw? Because ink is the same in all, they could all have been written in Europe instead. The flaw needs to be properly related to the reasoning of the author so (D) is correct.

(B) it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.
It doesn't clearly talk about ALL manuscripts found. It doesn't explain that all manuscripts could have been written in Europe and then transported to Africa.
The opposing argument to the author is that some manuscripts came from Europe. This option doesn't add anything new.

VeritasKarishma..
I got it!...Option (B) talks about the argument in general....whereas (D) points out its structure....SO (B) is kind of irrelevant here...we need to find the flaw in the argument not what it relates to in general...
Thanks again

I think B is irrelevant because it states that "European manuscripts were transported", it may not be the same with the manuscripts found in the excavations.

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.