Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 17:42 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 17:42
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
User avatar
vikasp99
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Last visit: 13 Nov 2025
Posts: 263
Own Kudos:
1,823
 [14]
Given Kudos: 236
Location: Canada
Posts: 263
Kudos: 1,823
 [14]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
10
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
natewarden777
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Last visit: 06 Jun 2017
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
2
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 2
Kudos: 2
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
Baidyasen
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Last visit: 19 Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,236
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,236
Kudos: 1,343
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nightblade354 gmatexam439 ammuseeru Harshgmat GMATNinja pikolo2510 KarishmaB
generis

Stumped by this inference question.

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.
The author is trying to draw a similarity between two parallels here:
1. Trade between E and EA.
2. Yeti

Just like we can not claim there was no trade between E and EA
since we there were no written records of trade between two continents

Similarly, we can not claim Yeti did not exist in Himalayas since there is no scientifically confirmed evidence
(e.g. remains of fossils ) to prove the claim

Quote:
A verifiable sighting of the Yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.
An evidence (verified sight of Yeti) proves the claim (existence of Yeti)
No Evidence may still leave the scope of existence of Yeti.

Quote:
Which one of the following best expresses the point of the argument?
In an inference question, STAY AS CLOSE TO ARGUMENT and DO NOT BRING ANY OUTSIDE INFO
IRRELEVANT TO CONTEXT OF ARGUMENT

Quote:
(A) Evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is, like evidence for the existence of the Yeti, not scientifically confirmed.
Is the underlined portion the one that rendered this option incorrect. I fell in to trap of word as like in this answer choice

Quote:
(B) In order to prove that in the early Middle Ages there was trade between Europe and East Asia it is necessary to find [highlight]both[/highlight ]Asian and European evidence that such trade existed.
BOTH, no way out of the scope of the argument.

Quote:
(C) That trade between Europe and East Asia did not exist in the early Middle Ages cannot be established simply by the absence of a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed.
Can I convert this sentence by using double negatives to a single positive:
That trade between Europe and East Asia existed in the early Middle Ages can be established simply by the absence of a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed.

I am still confused to analyse this answer choice.

Quote:
(D) The view that there was trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages can only be disproved by showing that no references to this trade exist in surviving records.
The core similarity is missing in this choice. OUT

Quote:
(E) There is no more evidence that trade between Europe and East Asia existed in the early Middle Ages than there is that the Yeti exists.
No such comparison as pointed out by this choice is present in the argument.
User avatar
nightblade354
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,781
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3,304
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,781
Kudos: 6,818
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani,

The passage states that just because evidence doesn't exist doesn't mean that it couldn't exist/have existed. (C), as you point out, states this. Your reasoning seems fine, and you stated why (A) is wrong, so I fail to see where you need help.

--Mod Nightblade
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani


Quote:
(C) That trade between Europe and East Asia did not exist in the early Middle Ages cannot be established simply by the absence of a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed.
Can I convert this sentence by using double negatives to a single positive:
That trade between Europe and East Asia existed in the early Middle Ages can be established simply by the absence of a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed.

I am still confused to analyse this answer choice.


The logic is simple - Say A exists in the universe.
I see A and say "Yes, it exists."
But can my friend who has never seen A say that A does not exist? Just because she has not seen A, does it mean it doesn't exist? No.

Proof establishes existence.
Just because we haven't found the proof, can we claim non-existence? May be we haven't found the proof yet but will find later. May be the proof doesn't exists because there is no written record. But does it mean non-existence? No.

This is what (C) says: Non existence cannot be established by absence of evidence.
You cannot convert the negatives to positives.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,835
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,835
Kudos: 986
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
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts