An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites

Explanation is fine. I got 2nd and 3rd correct. However I still don't understand 1st one. We are not given data from 500 AD so how we can decide whether consumption of Meat in 600 AD >= or <= 5% of meat consumption in 500 AD?

In the following attachments are the given topic, where all of the questions are answered verbatim, and the questions, and two graphs:


The first statement question:
"Barras’s population increased from the AD 600s to 1200s."
The final sentence of the Barras paragraph:
"As Barras’s overall prosperity rose, there was more food available per person, and its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s to 400 residents in the AD 1000s to 600 residents in the AD 1200s."

The second statement question:
"Agna grew no grain."
The final sentence of the paragraph on Agna:
"With no open fields, Agna grew no grain."

Third statement question:
"Cussaia traded directly only with Barra"
Second sentence of the paragraph on Cussaia:
"It traded directly only with Barras, because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras."

Please tell me why all the answers are not supported by the passage when they literally are stated as such

An archaeological team has been excavating three ancient village sites—Barras, Agna, and Cussaia—looking in particular at kitchen waste dumps as a way to understand the villages' dietary patterns and trading relationships. What follows are brief summaries of their findings.

Barras: The best data come from stratified finds in this oceanside village, which was inhabited from AD 600 to 1300 and was the only one of the three villages to produce seafood, its main dietary item. Though Barras residents hunted on land and raised crops, this provided relatively small amounts of food. As Barras's overall prosperity rose, there was more food available per person, and its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s to 400 residents in the AD 1000s to 600 residents in the AD 1200s.

Agna: Agna was established in an inland forest around AD 800 and its residents mainly hunted but also ate considerable amounts of fruit, nuts, and other forest-vegetable products. They also traded meat to Barras for other goods. With no open fields, Agna grew no grain.

Cussaia: Predating Barras, Cussaia depended heavily on raising grain crops and eventually obtained seafood and meat via trade. It traded directly only with Barras, because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras.

Additionally, there is no evidence that any other village traded with Barras, Agna, or Cussaia prior to AD 1300.




I have attached a question from GMAT prep on IR.
I have answered the question. I feel that those answers are correct because that information is given in the passage. But official answers are different

Can somebody explain why my answers are wrong?

unebaguette - I understand exactly how you could miss this question, for the answer has to do with a careful reading of the question itself:

"For each of the following, select Yes if the statement is separately supported by each of the two tables" (my emphases).

Of course, you cannot tell that the population of Barras increased from any period of time to another by looking at a table of Dietary Items Consumed per Person; neither can you tell what Agna may or may not have grown from the same table, or anything about the trading habits of Cussaia. This is nothing more than a trick question, the kind that you have to stumble into at first when practicing GMAT™ questions to grow really wary of all (or at least most) of the test's traps. Had the question been phased as an "either/or" statement instead, as in, "For each... if the statement is supported by either the tables or the statements," then you would, of course, have answered the question correctly. Be careful. Make sure you answer the question being asked, especially on these three-part IR questions, in which complete confidence in your answers can lead you down a slippery slope.

If this explanation does not make sense, then please let me know, and I would be happy to discuss the matter further. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Wow, no that makes complete sense, but it does seem kind of underhanded. Thank you so much for your explanation!

No worries if you're busy/don't see this, but are these kinds of trick questions common in the GMAT? So far this is the only question I've encountered that was so blatantly meant to trick

unebaguette - I am not nearly as busy as I would like to be, so answering these sorts of questions gives me satisfaction in the meantime. To be clear, yes, the GMAT™ is chock-full of such trickery, no more so than in the IR section, in my opinion. You can look at a question, think you have the answer immediately, and then miss one, two, or even all three parts to the question, simply due to an oversight in how to interpret the darn thing. My "skullduggery" scale goes as follows, from worst (i.e. underhandedness often appears) to best:

IR - Danger, danger! Stick to the exact wording of the question, as this one demonstrates, as well as the exact information from any passage. For example, if there is a table of prices for different items, and you read in the passage that each item is sold in threes, then make sure you take account of that fact if a question asks you to calculate the taxes on a purchase of such-and-such items.
DS - You might get five questions that specify integer in the problem, and then suddenly you get one without and make assumptions. Likewise, you may think you have an answer pinned down, only to find that you forgot a rule (e.g., the Quant Question of the Day from yesterday, which asked about whether an unknown was odd or even, and the test-taker had to know that 0! = 1). To avoid any pitfalls, take only the information in the problem as gospel to start out. As the Buddhist monk Ajahn Brahm likes to joke, "Don't let knowledge get in the way of wisdom."
PS - The answers are laced with traps, which correspond to common mistakes, numbers that appear at some step in the correct line of reasoning, or answers to questions that are not being asked. For instance, if the question asks about a ratio, and the answer ends up being 5:4, the question might be phrased in such a way that some unwitting test-takers might choose 4:5, a response that I guarantee would appear among the choices.
SC - Sometimes even the experts hit some nightmarish, fully underlined sentence with four or five parts to untangle, and it is less clear in which direction to go, since some responses seem to do better at one part, but others in another. A clear meaning that is expressed in fewer words is a general guideline to follow, but knowing grammar rules is, of course, a huge boon to success.
CR - Although these questions may seem diabolical to students who are starting out, the answers actually follow a certain pattern (e.g., outside of scope, reversal), one that I believe takes time and practice to get the upper hand on. Again, make sure you stick strictly to what is presented in the passage, as well as the wording of the question itself.
RC - Sure, some of the answers seem like traps, but like those of CR questions, they can be navigated in a pretty straightforward manner with practice. If the question says, According to the passage, then look for the answer directly in the passage; if the question says, It can be inferred... or The passage suggests that..., then match the keywords of the question to those of the passage and carefully read a part of the passage for contextual clues.

Remember, a standardized test has to have standardized answers, and if a case could be made for multiple correct answers, then the test would lose face or the test-makers would be slapped with a lawsuit. I cannot emphasize enough how vital it is to read carefully, even on Quant questions. Keeping information organized can take a 500 to a 600+, or a 650 to a 700.

Happy studying.

- Andrew
_________________

Please help:
1. "As Barras’s overall prosperity rose, there was more food available per person, and its population increased from an average of 100 residents in the AD 600s to 400 residents in the AD 1000s to 600 residents in the AD 1200s."
-> we are only talking about averages - is this the reason for NO?
2. It says in the text "Agna grew no grain", so why should it be NO?
3. It says in the text "It traded directly only with Barras", so why should it be NO?

Hi, my justification for the answer that all 3 items are "No"

Question: For each of the following, select Yes if the statement is separately supported by the passage and separately supported by each of the two tables. Otherwise select No

While the answers itself were mentioned in the passage (Tab 1), they were not supported elsewhere in either the table (Tab 2 & Tab 3)

Hope this helps

So the second question means that the answers should be supported by the passage AND table 1 AND table 3??
or the passage AND either of the two tables?

what sort of strategy should one use for thee types of questions ?

But according to table 2, meat was consumed only 30% of the time right?

so why are we not doing 30% of 16000 ??
Please help

The question about "separately supported" is a total meanie. It's so easy you think they can not actually mean that you are just supposed to look at the tables and confirm there are no info about any of the statements. Not even funny.

I still think playing with wording is lame in question 2.

Please help with this one. DOUBT in Question 2:

Given:
Agna: Agna was established in an inland forest around AD 800 and its residents mainly hunted but also ate considerable amounts of fruit, nuts, and other forest-vegetable products. They also traded meat to Barras for other goods. With no open fields, Agna grew no grain.
Cussaia: Predating Barras, Cussaia depended heavily on raising grain crops and eventually obtained seafood and meat via trade. It traded directly only with Barras, because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras.

>>Then how the answer to (Ques ii : Agna grew no grain) is No? (It should be YES bcz of the Bold portion(as marked))

>>Then how the answer to (Ques iii :Cussaia traded directly only with Barras) is No? (It should be YES bcz of the Bold portion(as marked))

anairamitch1804 GMATNinja Bunuel KarishmaB
Please help with this one. DOUBT in Question 2:

Given:
Agna: Agna was established in an inland forest around AD 800 and its residents mainly hunted but also ate considerable amounts of fruit, nuts, and other forest-vegetable products. They also traded meat to Barras for other goods. With no open fields, Agna grew no grain.
Cussaia: Predating Barras, Cussaia depended heavily on raising grain crops and eventually obtained seafood and meat via trade. It traded directly only with Barras, because a mountain range separated it from Agna, though some products may have been traded between Agna and Cussaia via Barras.

>>Then how the answer to (Ques ii : Agna grew no grain) is No? (It should be YES bcz of the Bold portion(as marked))

>>Then how the answer to (Ques iii :Cussaia traded directly only with Barras) is No? (It should be YES bcz of the Bold portion(as marked))

Mansha1412

I think you have misread the question. Note again:

Question 2: For each of the following, select Yes if the statement is separately supported by the passage and separately supported by each of the two tables. Otherwise select No.

We select "YES" only if the statement is supported by both the passage (Tab 1 - Village Sites) and by each table thereafter (showing the other two tabs) independently. But only the passage gives info on all 3 statements. The tables give no info on the statements.

Hence, we select "NO" for all.

Hi KarishmaB! I've never seen a questions like this on IR! I mean the trap about having in the info SEPARATELY in each tab. Is this common in IR questions? Thank you!

IR has lots of small data packets and that creates the possibility of formulating the question in a million different ways. Mind you, the question would be answerable within a couple or so mins but you would really need to read the question very very well - that is the main point and one that once internalised helps you solve ALL types of questions. Just like in everyday business activities and in life, we cannot expect the same patterns to repeat always. There are bound to be new, never-before-seen challenges which can be handled using the same experience, and that is called skill!

For each of the following, select Yes if the statement is separately supported by the passage and separately supported by each of the two tables. Otherwise select No.

Read the whole question. If each question is supported by both the passage and the tables.
It's only supported by the passage, not any of the tables.
So all answers are NO.