|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
29 Jan 2005, 08:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Another CR
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
29 Jan 2005, 09:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
I choose D.
The author finally used the unverified opinion to support his argument that people who built the ring are not knowledgeable.
In fact, the unverified opinion that the chance is large is just an opinion, but the author used the opinion as a fact to support his conclusion.
The author finally used the unverified opinion to support his argument that people who built the ring are not knowledgeable.
In fact, the unverified opinion that the chance is large is just an opinion, but the author used the opinion as a fact to support his conclusion.
29 Jan 2005, 14:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Wow this one is hard. I've read it more than three times before I could see a light.
The answer is (A).
What Dobson has successfully done is to establish that the two stones out of many stones can not really support the historians conclusion. However, that doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong. In other words, he was using the lack of evidence to support a conclusion as the evidence to deny the conclusion.
Use a simpler case, if I say the moon is round, so the sun must be round. What Dobson did is that the moon is round doesn't mean that the sun is round. However, that doesn't mean we can then say the sun is not round. There may be other evidences that could support the conclusion that the sun is round.
Have I confused everybody yet?
The answer is (A).
What Dobson has successfully done is to establish that the two stones out of many stones can not really support the historians conclusion. However, that doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong. In other words, he was using the lack of evidence to support a conclusion as the evidence to deny the conclusion.
Use a simpler case, if I say the moon is round, so the sun must be round. What Dobson did is that the moon is round doesn't mean that the sun is round. However, that doesn't mean we can then say the sun is not round. There may be other evidences that could support the conclusion that the sun is round.
Have I confused everybody yet?
Is this use of "talk into" grammatically correct? 
