NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 09:48 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 09:48
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2   3   
Tags:
Difficulty: 605-655 Levelx   Strengthenx                        
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14830
Own Kudos [?]: 64935 [2]
Given Kudos: 427
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   20 Aug 2020, 03:54
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
scorpio7 wrote:
Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devestated by earthquakes. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis?


(A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessals that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion.

(B) No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.

(C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occured near the island in A.D. 365.

(D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and 400 were found in Kourion.

(E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyrpus after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion.


Verbal Question of The Day: Day 249: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here



Kourion excavation revealed a pattern of debris typical of towns devastated by earthquakes.

Hypothesis: The town was destructed due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365.

The hypothesis says that the destruction was caused in 365 AD by the earthquake known to have happened that year. To strengthen the hypothesis that the town was destructed by that earthquake, we need to give some data showing us that the town was destructed in 365 AD.

(A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessals that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion.

Drinking vessels that are found both before and after 365 AD were found in graves near Kourion too. This doesn't say that the town was destructed in 365 AD. Those vessels were common to that time. They were found in Kourion too. This doesn't tell us that Kourion was destroyed in 365 AD.

(B) No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.

Well, this does strengthen that the town was destroyed in 365 AD. Coins minted before that were found but no coins minted after that were found. Looks like after 365 AD no coins were minted in Kuorion because the town got destroyed. This strengthens our hypothesis.

(C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occured near the island in A.D. 365.

We are already told this in our argument. No new info.

(D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and 400 were found in Kourion.

This just shows that Kourion was alive and kicking at some time in that century (between 300 - 400 AD). When was it destroyed, it doesn't say.

(E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyrpus after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion.

This shows that Kourion may have been alive after 365 AD too. It doesn't strengthen our hypothesis that Kourion was destroyed in 365 AD.

Answer (B)
avatar
B
DeepakPatel495452
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2019
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 55
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   04 Dec 2020, 02:30
GMATNinja wrote:
The archaeologists conclude that the destruction found in Kourion was caused by an earthquake near Cyprus in the year A.D. 365. Here’s how they arrive at that conclusion:

    1. They found a pattern of destruction in Kourion (a city on the island of Cyprus).
    2. This pattern is typically found in towns devastated by earthquakes.
    3. An earthquake took place near Cyprus in A.D. 365.
    4. Therefore, this earthquake is what caused the destruction of Kourion.

And the question is asking: which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis?

To strengthen this argument, we'll need to rule out other causes of the same pattern of destruction or find evidence that Kourion was actually devastated in A.D. 365, not sometime before or after the earthquake.

Quote:
(A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessels that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion.

If Kourion was devastated in A.D. 365, we wouldn’t expect to see any drinking vessels originating from after that year. Choice (A) weakens the argument, so we’ll eliminate it.

Quote:
(B) No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.

Choice (B) presents exactly the kind of evidence we need to back the archaeologists. If they found pre-365 coinage in the debris but couldn’t find a single coin created after 365, then we’d be more inclined to believe that the earthquake in A.D. 365 did in fact devastate Kourion. Let’s keep this and continue eliminating choices.

Quote:
(C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occurred near the island in A.D. 365.

Choice (C) doesn’t give us any new information. It may strengthen the fact that an earthquake took place in this year, but doesn’t strengthen the argument that this earthquake caused the destruction seen in Kourion. Let’s eliminate choice (C).

Quote:
(D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and 400 were found in Kourion.

Choice (D) would neither strengthen nor weaken the argument, which places the destruction of Kourion in A.D. 365. If these small statues were carved between 300 and 365, choice (D) would strengthen the argument. If these small statues were carved between 365 and 400, choice (D) would weaken the argument. Since we don’t know when exactly the statues were carved, we’ll eliminate choice (D).

Quote:
(E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyprus after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion.

This evidence weakens the argument because it presents an artifact that was created after the year of the earthquake in A.D. 365. Let’s eliminate choice (E).

Answer choice (B) is the best option.



Hi GMATNinja,

I understood that the answer choice needs to strengthen the idea that the earthquake in year 365 AD was the one responsible for the destruction found in the city, but it is not mentioned in the passage that the city and people did not survive at all (in other words complete destruction). No coins after 365AD could mean that they developed paper based money system or any other system of exchange that did not leave evidence for historians to relate the cause of no coins.

The idea to use the evidence of no coins found after 365AD to relate the complete destruction (not necessarily explicitly mentioned in the passage) seems to be very specific to think in short time under exam pressure. Is this question an odd one example of GMAT question or I am missing something in my approach.

Your short analysis will be very useful for me in understanding and developing my approach. :)

Regards,
Deepak Patel
avatar
B
BrooksFin312
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2020
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Schools: ESCP MiM "23
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   04 Dec 2020, 02:40
Destruction was due to major earthquake?
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   12 Feb 2022, 11:31
Hi avigutman - how do you see this argument different from this Official CR question.

Are both of the 2 arguments comparable you think ?

To me they are comparable

# 1) This specific argument
Based on evidence == X must have caused Y

# 2) Tagged Official CR question. argument
Based on evidence == Therefore, A must be true

Do you think these are comparable arguments ?
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   12 Feb 2022, 12:43
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi avigutman - how do you see this argument different from this Official CR question.

Are both of the 2 arguments comparable you think ?

To me they are comparable

# 1) This specific argument
Based on evidence == X must have caused Y

# 2) Tagged Official CR question. argument
Based on evidence == Therefore, A must be true

Do you think these are comparable arguments ?


jabhatta2 If you abstract the arguments to a high enough degree, as you seem to be doing here, almost all CR arguments are comparable.
It's like asking whether you and Elon Musk are comparable. After all, you're both human, so surely the answer is yes.
When I look at these two arguments, here's what I see:

Quote:
Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devestated by earthquakes. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365.

Abstraction:
Since a pattern is typical of a particular natural phenomenon, this particular instance of the pattern was the result of a particular known major instance of that phenomenon.
I would point to the words "typical" and "particular" as the most important words above.

Quote:
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-ray because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

Abstraction:
Money spent on catching false negative diagnoses of a particular ailment is a waste, since none were found when a number of such attempts were reviewed.
Alternatively:
A number of instances of a particular test were found, upon review, to have been a waste of money. Therefore, all instances of that particular test are a waste of money.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 12 Feb 2022, 18:18
Hi avigutman - my apologies - i think i completely misfired with the above question.

Please ignore the above q.

I want to re-phrase my question completely as i dont think i asked what i was hoping to understand

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 12 Feb 2022, 17:54.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 12 Feb 2022, 18:18, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 12 Feb 2022, 18:28
avigutman - In the original question - I personally struggled to eliminate C. I thought C DID strengthen

I keep reading that C is wrong as option C repeats what is already in the passage.

But by whom ?

Option C is describing what ANOTHER ENTITY believes [modern histories are different from archeologists at the end of the day]

Why am I focussing so much on what ANOTHER ENTITY is saying ?

Below..

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 12 Feb 2022, 17:58.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 12 Feb 2022, 18:28, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   12 Feb 2022, 18:12
^^^^

I think I care because I am being swayed by the OA's in these 2 official strengthen questions [ Official CR # 1 & Official CR # 2]. The trend to strengthen is the same -

-- Describe ANOTHER entity (different from the ENTITY mentioned in the passage)
-- This SECOND entity [another city or another newspaper) -- says, well the conclusion in the passage (businesses thriving or dip in viewership) DID OCCUR with this second entity
-- Hence the argument is strengthened.
-- Whatever the 1st entity is concluding -- this conclusion is supposedly more likely to be true because we saw the conclusion, happen with the SECOND entity

Coming back to the original question - I thought Option C strengthened in a similar fashion

-- ANOTHER entity (modern histories) is described
-- What is this ANOTHER entity saying ?
-- This ANOTHER entity is stating an earthquake DID OCCUR around that same time
-- Because this 2nd entity is describing, an earthquake did occur around 365 AD --

the hypothesis of the FIRST ENTITY (archeologists) - is a bit more likely to be true because of what the 2nd entity is describing.
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   12 Feb 2022, 21:24
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Quote:
A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

The OA tells us that the drop in viewership wasn't isolated to this particular network. It is NOT confirming something that we already knew from the argument. This is NEW INFO.

Quote:
A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and is considering a plan that would reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians. The intent is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.

The argument proposes a plan to achieve a particular goal, and the OA tells us that in other, similar situations, that plan indeed achieved the stated goal. It is NOT confirming something that we already knew from the argument. This is NEW INFO.

In this problem, on the other hand, look at what the argument tells us:
Quote:
a major earthquake known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365

Note, jabhatta2, that this is not the Archaeologists' hypothesis. Their hypothesis is that the destruction was due to a major earthquake.

After reading this:
Quote:
a major earthquake known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365

Are you thinking: "oh, I wonder what percent of modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occured near the island in A.D. 365... If I find out that more than 50% mention it, that would increase my confidence in the Archaeologists' hypothesis."

No, why would any of that matter if a major earthquake is known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365? We should be looking for an answer choice that tells us something we don't already know.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 13 Feb 2022, 08:51
avigutman wrote:
In this problem, on the other hand, look at what the argument tells us:
Quote:
a major earthquake known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365

Note, jabhatta2, that this is not the Archaeologists' hypothesis. Their hypothesis is that the destruction was due to a major earthquake.

After reading this:
Quote:
a major earthquake known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365

Are you thinking: "oh, I wonder what percent of modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occured near the island in A.D. 365... If I find out that more than 50% mention it, that would increase my confidence in the Archaeologists' hypothesis."

No, why would any of that matter if a major earthquake is known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365? We should be looking for an answer choice that tells us something we don't already know.


Hi avigutman - thank you so much for following up – I think what you are implying in the above specifically with regards to the original CR question -

  • Known to have occurred in AD 365 is a FACT …Per the argument -- the earthquake DID occur in 365 AD.
  • That was surprising to me …I think the words “known to have occurred’ gave me at-least the impression – there is no 100 % consensus whether there was an earthquake in 365 AD or not
  • I think that’s why I gravitated towards C because I was hoping to strengthen this piece (if the earthquake DID happen in 365 AD or not)

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 13 Feb 2022, 08:40.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 13 Feb 2022, 08:51, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 08:42
^^^ If I say that and make up this argument -- here are my notes on why B is a strengthener

Quote:
  • Fact - we all know, an earthquake happened in 365 AD
  • Premise - Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes
  • Conclusion - Destruction was due to a major earthquake


As an excercise, here are some loopholes i thought about
Quote:
(loophole #1) maybe the earthquake did take place in 365 AD but did the destruction, mentioned in the premise, take place around 365 AD ? Maybe the destruction took place around 200 AD or 400 AD

(loophole # 2) Were there any other major problems in 365 AD -- floods / fire ..


Answer B) strengthens by closing the loophole # 1 ... the destruction of Kurion most likely DID OCCUR around 365 AD
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 09:58
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
The words “known to have occurred’ gave me at-least the impression – there is no 100 % consensus whether there was an earthquake in 365 AD or not

jabhatta2 Why do you think you got that impression from those words? I thought it was because they came right after this:
Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake
So you accidentally figured this was still part of the hypothesis.
But are you saying that, regardless, you'd interpret “known to have occurred" as something that may be false?
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 10:06
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
Conclusion - Destruction was due to a major earthquake

This is wrong in an important way, jabhatta2. The hypothesis wasn't just that the destruction was due to a major earthquake. It was a much more specific hypothesis, claiming that the destruction was due to the major earthquake of A.D. 365. Do you see the difference?

jabhatta2 wrote:
(loophole #1) maybe the earthquake did take place in 365 AD but did the destruction, mentioned in the premise, take place around 365 AD ? Maybe the destruction took place around 200 AD or 400 AD

Not maybe. The earthquake did take place in A.D. 365.
Why would the destruction have taken place around A.D. 200 or A.D. 400? Perhaps there was an unknown major earthquake at one of those times?

jabhatta2 wrote:
(loophole # 2) Were there any other major problems in 365 AD -- floods / fire ..

Why is this a loophole? We already know there was a major earthquake that year, so other major problems at that same year don't affect the argument in any way.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 11:19
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
Conclusion - Destruction was due to a major earthquake

This is wrong in an important way, jabhatta2. The hypothesis wasn't just that the destruction was due to a major earthquake. It was a much more specific hypothesis, claiming that the destruction was due to the major earthquake of A.D. 365. Do you see the difference?


Yes, i see a difference
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 13 Feb 2022, 13:34
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
(loophole #1) maybe the earthquake did take place in 365 AD but did the destruction, mentioned in the premise, take place around 365 AD ? Maybe the destruction took place around 200 AD or 400 AD

Not maybe. The earthquake did take place in A.D. 365.
Why would the destruction have taken place around A.D. 200 or A.D. 400? Perhaps there was an unknown major earthquake at one of those times?


I thought the yellow was a loophole BECAUSE if there was the following option F / option F1 - option F and F1 would stregnthen / weaken the hypothesis.

(option F) new evidence suggests that the destruction of kurion DID OCCUR in 365 AD

This 'strengthens' the hypothesis.

(option F1) new evidence suggests that the destruction of kurion took place around 200 AD (not 365 AD)

This 'weakens' the hypothesis - If option F1 was present - i would select option F1 as a weakener because this prooves that the earthquake of 365 AD specifically could not have caused the destruction of kurion

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 13 Feb 2022, 11:20.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 13 Feb 2022, 13:34, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 11:21
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
(loophole # 2) Were there any other major problems in 365 AD -- floods / fire ..

Why is this a loophole? We already know there was a major earthquake that year,so other major problems at that same year don't affect the argument in any way.



Same thing on the yellow highlight here. I thought the following option G / option G1 would be a strengthener / weakener


(option G) new evidence suggests that a flood DID NOT OCCUR in 365 AD.

I thought Option G is also a strengthener for the hypoethesis because it shows the earthquake of 365 AD more likely was the cause of the destruction (because another factor could not have caused the destruction)

(option G1) new evidence suggests that a flood ALSO occured in 365 AD.

This 'weakens' the hypothesis

If option G1 was present - i would select option G1 as a weakener because maybe the flood (not the earthquake) caused the destruction of kurion
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 14:22
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
(loophole #1) maybe the earthquake did take place in 365 AD but did the destruction, mentioned in the premise, take place around 365 AD ? Maybe the destruction took place around 200 AD or 400 AD

Not maybe. The earthquake did take place in A.D. 365.
Why would the destruction have taken place around A.D. 200 or A.D. 400? Perhaps there was an unknown major earthquake at one of those times?


I thought the yellow was a loophole BECAUSE if there was the following option F / option F1 - option F and F1 would stregnthen / weaken the hypothesis.

(option F) new evidence suggests that the destruction of kurion DID OCCUR in 365 AD

This 'strengthens' the hypothesis.

(option F1) new evidence suggests that the destruction of kurion took place around 200 AD (not 365 AD)

This 'weakens' the hypothesis - If option F1 was present - i would select option F1 as a weakener because this prooves that the earthquake of 365 AD specifically could not have caused the destruction of kurion


Yes, jabhatta2, these are excellent.
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 14:29
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
(loophole # 2) Were there any other major problems in 365 AD -- floods / fire ..

Why is this a loophole? We already know there was a major earthquake that year,so other major problems at that same year don't affect the argument in any way.



Same thing on the yellow highlight here. I thought the following option G / option G1 would be a strengthener / weakener


(option G) new evidence suggests that a flood DID NOT OCCUR in 365 AD.

I thought Option G is also a strengthener for the hypoethesis because it shows the earthquake of 365 AD more likely was the cause of the destruction (because another factor could not have caused the destruction)

(option G1) new evidence suggests that a flood ALSO occured in 365 AD.

This 'weakens' the hypothesis

If option G1 was present - i would select option G1 as a weakener because maybe the flood (not the earthquake) caused the destruction of kurion



These are a bit suspect, jabhatta2. The only thing special about the year A.D. 365 is the major earthquake known to have occurred that year.
Does option G strengthen the hypothesis? I'd be more inclined to agree if we knew for a fact that A.D. 365 indeed was the year of the destruction, and we weren't as confident about what caused the destruction.
But, looking at the original argument, it appears to be the other way around: the archaeologists have good reason to believe that the cause was an earthquake, and the thing they're surmising is which earthquake was the culprit.
So, the takeaway is that it's important to understand the differing levels of confidence in the different parts of an argument. Seems like an extension of your original misunderstanding.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [1]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 15:43
1
Kudos
Thanks avigutman - below yellow highlight in yellow helped clarify the DIFFERENCE in the arguments. The two arguments are a bit different.


avigutman wrote:
Does option G strengthen the hypothesis? I'd be more inclined to agree if we knew for a fact that A.D. 365 indeed was the year of the destruction, and we weren't as confident about what caused the destruction.
But, looking at the original argument, it appears to be the other way around: the archaeologists have good reason to believe that the cause was an earthquake, and the thing they're surmising is which earthquake was the culprit.
So, the takeaway is that it's important to understand the differing levels of confidence in the different parts of an argument. Seems like an extension of your original misunderstanding.



Attached sceenshot are the 2 arguments - side by side - Argument # 1 vs Argument # 2

I believe the question is argument # 2 whereas I thought it was argument structure # 1

In argument structure # 1 - option C (bullet 3 in the screenshot) would be a contender for a strengthener i think

in Argument structure # 2 - option C (bullet 3 in the screenshot) would be pointless
Attachments

strengthner 3.JPG
strengthner 3.JPG [ 125.83 KiB | Viewed 1345 times ]

User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2022, 16:13
Expert Reply
Very nicely done, jabhatta2. The only thing I would push back on in this:
jabhatta2 wrote:
Fact: Kourion was destroyed in A.D. 365
Conclusion: Kourion was destroyed by an earthquake
Strengthener: No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.


Why do you think this strengthens, jabhatta2?
We already knew that Kourion was destroyed in A.D. 365, so the information about coins makes sense. how does it support the conclusion that an earthquake was what destroyed Kourion?
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus reve [#permalink]
13 Feb 2022, 16:13
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions