It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 20:48

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-peddling

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

Show Tags

10 Aug 2008, 23:10
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

HideShow timer Statistics

Guys !!somehow OA does not seem to be convincing here!!
kindly help me solve this

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler’s arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.
The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 428

Show Tags

11 Aug 2008, 00:08
spriya wrote:
Guys !!somehow OA does not seem to be convincing here!!
kindly help me solve this

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler’s arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.
The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

A) -> He might have started around 1739 as well
B) -> He can give this statement at first arrest itself in 1739
C) -> True, since even his first incident was 1739, his last peddling will be 1759.
D) -> Not sure
E) -> Not really

Will go with C)
Director
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 726

Show Tags

11 Aug 2008, 00:12
spriya wrote:
Guys !!somehow OA does not seem to be convincing here!!
kindly help me solve this

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler’s arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.
The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

Between C & E.

I will go for C because the document Erich himself is asserting should not be called less reliable than the record.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 193

Show Tags

11 Aug 2008, 02:28
I have reached D more by using POE
In C it says before 1765 could be 1764 and hence we cant conclude
Similarly E can t be concluded because may be he was falsely arrested. So left only with D
if we carefully read the premise it says Mr. has been peddling off and on. probably he was never arrested when he made this statement.
Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 85

Show Tags

12 Aug 2008, 03:25
IMO E

A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.- CAN ALSO BE 1739
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling. - CANT BE CONCLUDED
(C) The undated document was written before 1765. - ONE DATE MISSING,THEREFORE CANT BE CONCLUDED
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document. - NOT SURE
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.-BECAUSE THE OTHER RECORD IS UNDATED,WE DONT KNOW WHETHER IT IS VALID,THEREFORE I WOULD ONLY BELIEVE IN THE FIRST ONE WHICH HAS A DATE ATTACHED TO IT.

WHAT'S THE OA?
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 187

Show Tags

12 Aug 2008, 04:29
I go with E. In C, the document is undated, so we can't say that it is before a date.
Re: CR-peddling   [#permalink] 12 Aug 2008, 04:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by

CR-peddling

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.