It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 06:00

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# CR: Elephants

Author Message
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 842

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2005, 22:54
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Attachments

CR1.JPG [ 55.81 KiB | Viewed 1228 times ]

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 288

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2005, 23:19
I'll pick D.
Knowledge of animals does not support the argument.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 03:17
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)
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1708

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 06:19
go with D.
documents earlier than the tenth century has nothing to do with tenhth century trade between east and north..........

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 842

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 08:32
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.

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 270

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Location: Auckland, New Zealand

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 13:57
Vithal wrote:
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.

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

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 842

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 14:02
cloudz9 wrote:
Vithal wrote:
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.

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

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

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 270

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Location: Auckland, New Zealand

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 14:06
Vithal wrote:
cloudz9 wrote:
Vithal wrote:
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.

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

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

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

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 163

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Location: Atlanta , GA

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 14:12
Vithal wrote:
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.

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 .

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 14:42
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.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 842

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2005, 15:29
Hmmm...I get it

Thank you! OA is D

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 543

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Location: Canuckland

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2005, 01:04
One more for D. Animals! what animals????

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1708

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2005, 22:00
Vithal wrote:
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.

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

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2005, 03:17
D it is. All other options directly or indirectly support the historians claims.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

14 Jun 2005, 03:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by