CR: Elephants

Question

IMO: There are a few mistakes in the options, but, focus more on the logic. I am posting this because I am not convinced with the OA that I have.

sonaketu · Answer

I'll pick D.
Knowledge of animals does not support the argument.

Paul · Answer

I agree with D
A) Proves that trade existed then
B) Proves that trade started only after the 10th century
C) Change in style confirms contact b/w 2 nations
D) Out of scope. At the extreme, it could even prove the author wrong by saying that NA already had contact with EA
E) Shows that EA had contact with other countries, NA in particular, as of then. (This was slightly more difficult option to refute)

HIMALAYA · Answer

go with D. 
documents earlier than the tenth century has nothing to do with tenhth century trade between east and north..........

Vithal · Answer

can someone refute B? 
Paul: I am not clear on your explanation - how does B prove that trade existed after 10th cen.? It just says that none of the documents have any record of transactions before 10th cen.

cloudz9 · Answer

it doesn't need to be proved though right?
the fact that the letters from before dont talk about trade with east africa gives some support for the argument that perhaps it wasn't talked about cause it didn't exist

Vithal · Answer

Historians argument is that the trade started/existed - so, doesn't B go against Historians argument? :oops:

cloudz9 · Answer

Historians claim is that trade started around the 10th century...this could be refuted if there was proof that trade with africa was going on from before...
however, as letters by merchants from before the 10th century have no mention of it, perhaps it didn't exist back then and only started around the 10th century...
and this supports the historians' claim

shalinikhatri · Answer

Historians argue that business transactions between these nations started during "THIS PERIOD" means 10th century and since there is no mention of these transactions in pre 10th century letters , that stregnthens historians argument that business started after 10th or it never existed before 10th .


My answer is "D"

Paul · Answer

Vithal, all you need is the argument to provide SOME support for the author's contention. In other words, all you need is that the argument does NOT go against what the passage is saying.

Keeping that in mind, B says that  no documents mentioned any trade b/w EA and NA prior to 10th century . The passage, for its part, says that trade b/w the 2 nations started around the 10th century. Hence, B is not going against the argument and does give SOME support for the author's contention.

Vithal · Answer

Hmmm...I get it 

Thank you! OA is D

sparky · Answer

One more for D. Animals! what animals????

HIMALAYA · Answer

before going through all options, i was also stuck with B, but later when i saw D, then choosed it....................

wild_desperado · Answer

D it is. All other options directly or indirectly support the historians claims.

CR: Elephants

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards