GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Nov 2018, 20:44

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
• ### GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

09:00 AM PST

11:00 AM PST

Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

# Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Posts: 312
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2017, 18:59
1
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:42) correct 20% (01:59) wrong based on 199 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 best expresses the point of the argument?

(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.

(B) In order to prove that in the early Middle Ages there was trade between Europe and East Asia it is necessary to find both Asian and European evidence that such trade existed.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Source: LSAT
Intern
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2017, 08:18
"the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not."

(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.
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 3
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2017, 03:13
It is C as it completes the analogy. Not sighted does not mean it did not exist. There was no evidence which supports that the trade did not happen. C clearly hits the main point

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Study Buddy Forum Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1249
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2018, 09:02
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.
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 393
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2018, 10:29

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.

_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8537
Location: Pune, India
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2018, 04:28
1

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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea &nbs [#permalink] 20 Jul 2018, 04:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by