Last visit was: 19 Jul 2025, 19:49 It is currently 19 Jul 2025, 19:49
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
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
HIMALAYA
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Last visit: 09 Aug 2011
Posts: 796
Own Kudos:
268
 [61]
Posts: 796
Kudos: 268
 [61]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
53
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,480
Own Kudos:
30,138
 [17]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,480
Kudos: 30,138
 [17]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
pqhai
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Last visit: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 868
Own Kudos:
8,829
 [14]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Posts: 868
Kudos: 8,829
 [14]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
joshnsit
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Last visit: 19 Oct 2017
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Posts: 238
Kudos: 1,361
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HIMALAYA
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti’s existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.
No reasoning provided for this question :roll: :?: Can CR champs comment on this one? I got this wrong.... :x
User avatar
mohan514
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
Last visit: 29 Jul 2014
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Status:exam is close ... dont know if i ll hit that number
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 10-09-2012
GPA: 3.2
Posts: 106
Kudos: 62
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
even working on this for 3min
got it wrong ..
can anybody please give explanation..
User avatar
metallicafan
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Last visit: 26 Aug 2020
Posts: 760
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 109
Status:2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Location: Peru
Concentration: Finance, SMEs, Developing countries, Public sector and non profit organizations
Schools:Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
GPA: 4.0
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Posts: 760
Kudos: 4,300
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
+1 E

Maybe this article can help you in your strategy ;)

https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... reasoning/
avatar
vmdce129907
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Last visit: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
170
 [1]
Given Kudos: 12
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Posts: 28
Kudos: 170
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
HIMALAYA
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.
fameatop
Hi Mike, Can you kindly explain this question as i am not to understand the options. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame
What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)


Mike, Thanks for the detailed explanation. This question is very tricky and unfortunately I still have doubts..
In this question, we need to counter the argument which mentions the analogy between existence of trade and Yeti Example.
Countering the argument will mean presenting facts which undermines the analogy. Analogy is that absence of written records (Absence of Sighting of Yeti) cannot imply that Trade did not exist (that Yeti does not exist).

Question is how to undermine this analogy. I thought the best answer choice would be one that implies 'The absence of written records indeed means lack of trade', I could not find any option in the answer choices very convincing.

I am completely lost in the analogy, would request you to explain option 'E' and how it counters the analogy in the argument..

Thanks..
User avatar
ssbisht
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Last visit: 23 May 2013
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 36
Kudos: 209
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vmdce129907
mikemcgarry
HIMALAYA
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.
fameatop
Hi Mike, Can you kindly explain this question as i am not to understand the options. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame
What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)


Mike, Thanks for the detailed explanation. This question is very tricky and unfortunately I still have doubts..
In this question, we need to counter the argument which mentions the analogy between existence of trade and Yeti Example.
Countering the argument will mean presenting facts which undermines the analogy. Analogy is that absence of written records (Absence of Sighting of Yeti) cannot imply that Trade did not exist (that Yeti does not exist).

Question is how to undermine this analogy. I thought the best answer choice would be one that implies 'The absence of written records indeed means lack of trade', I could not find any option in the answer choices very convincing.

I am completely lost in the analogy, would request you to explain option 'E' and how it counters the analogy in the argument..

Thanks..

The argument in the passage is :
No written record /verifiable sightings don’t imply that no trade/yeti exists.
The option E counter this by saying that written records from early middle ages would have(very likely) included trade information if trade had existed.
avatar
TerryJones
Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Last visit: 19 May 2014
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Posts: 5
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.
This is the argument I focused on in choosing E.

The overall argument in comparing trade to the Yeti is that the lack of evidence cannot be used to prove something did/didn't exist. What you're looking for in the answers is not an argument that is definitive on trade or on the yeti, but one that uses a lack of evidence to support an argument.

(A) shifts evidence from written to archaeological, irrelevant of a lack of evidence
(B) notes a lack of evidence, but doesn't counter any argument
(C) irrelevant
(D) shifts to actual evidence to prove the yeti, this is irrelevant and doesn't counter using a lack of evidence
(E) This is correct. The answer makes an argument that uses a lack of evidence to prove/disprove something. Remember, take the answers as if true. E lays out an argument that uses lack of evidence to prove there wasn't trading between Europe/Asia.
avatar
Amit1408GMAThunk
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Last visit: 10 Nov 2014
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Products:
Posts: 34
Kudos: 26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Clearly Option E was correct answer choice for this question.

It is the only option that weakens the author's argument in the correct manner.

Thanks!
User avatar
Octobre
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Last visit: 06 Jun 2018
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 168
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V45
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V45
Posts: 40
Kudos: 50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Countering the argument would it be to show that no written records does imply the trade did not exist?
If yes then E by elimination but not by conviction .
User avatar
robu1
Joined: 08 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Apr 2021
Posts: 94
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 214
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V29
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V29
Posts: 94
Kudos: 65
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
HIMALAYA
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.
(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.
(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence.
(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.
fameatop
Hi Mike, Can you kindly explain this question as i am not to understand the options. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame
What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike :-)

How we will do such question in exam pressure. Very tough question. Please shed some light on this aspect.
User avatar
TheGraceful
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 333
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 217
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Products:
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
Posts: 333
Kudos: 214
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TerryJones
The overall argument in comparing trade to the Yeti is that the lack of evidence cannot be used to prove something did/didn't exist. What you're looking for in the answers is not an argument that is definitive on trade or on the yeti, but one that uses a lack of evidence to support an argument.

(A) shifts evidence from written to archaeological, irrelevant of a lack of evidence
(B) notes a lack of evidence, but doesn't counter any argument
(C) irrelevant
(D) shifts to actual evidence to prove the yeti, this is irrelevant and doesn't counter using a lack of evidence
(E) This is correct. The answer makes an argument that uses a lack of evidence to prove/disprove something. Remember, take the answers as if true. E lays out an argument that uses lack of evidence to prove there wasn't trading between Europe/Asia.

The explanation for D is NOT convincing.
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 564
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 564
Kudos: 313
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheGraceful
TerryJones
The overall argument in comparing trade to the Yeti is that the lack of evidence cannot be used to prove something did/didn't exist. What you're looking for in the answers is not an argument that is definitive on trade or on the yeti, but one that uses a lack of evidence to support an argument.

(A) shifts evidence from written to archaeological, irrelevant of a lack of evidence
(B) notes a lack of evidence, but doesn't counter any argument
(C) irrelevant
(D) shifts to actual evidence to prove the yeti, this is irrelevant and doesn't counter using a lack of evidence
(E) This is correct. The answer makes an argument that uses a lack of evidence to prove/disprove something. Remember, take the answers as if true. E lays out an argument that uses lack of evidence to prove there wasn't trading between Europe/Asia.

The explanation for D is NOT convincing.

TheGraceful, understanding the overall position of option D is enough to reject it. If anything, D is mildly trying to support the author's point on the existence of Yeti by saying that it is possible to prove the Yeti's existence w/o actual sightings. More importantly though, D does not tell us anything about the structure of the argument.
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,727
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,727
Kudos: 2,172
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the Yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

Which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records. - WRONG.

(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all. - WRONG.

(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk. - WRONG.

(D) There have been no confirmed sightings of the Yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the Yeti's existence. - WRONG.

(E) There are surviving European and East Asian written records from the early Middle Ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.

Trade may or may not have existed between Europe and East Asia but basing this argument on existence of written records is what author cites as conclusive enough. If it's so then what might cause that argument go weak.
For this question specifically we have four choices that one way or another result towards one end. A - D, all of them do show that trade happened even if it is at smaller scale. Thus its all confusing after going through the answer choices until E. So, E is the only one that's unique and is the right answer, however, this is not the best way to answer a question.

Answer E.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,456
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,456
Kudos: 955
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts