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

It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 19:02

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

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

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
D
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Posts: 313
Location: Canada
Reviews Badge
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2017, 19:59
1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:27) correct 20% (01:26) wrong based on 167 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Posts: 4
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2017, 09:18
"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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 3
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2017, 04:13
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
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1169
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2018, 10:02
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
User avatar
P
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 325
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Reviews Badge
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2018, 11:29
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
_________________

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
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8204
Location: Pune, India
Re: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2018, 05:28
1
adkikani wrote:

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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

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, 05:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.