nightblade354 gmatexam439 ammuseeru Harshgmat GMATNinja pikolo2510 KarishmaBgenerisStumped 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.