Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:27 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:27
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
655-705 Level|   Assumption|               
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
436
 [3]
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
 [3]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 10 Mar 2019, 23:39
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
limitlessliu
Have to say I don't quite agree with most people's answers above. There is nowhere in answer choice E:

There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

That says the common repertory of mosaic designs contain "a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish". What if the common repertory of mosaic don't contain any of these?

Now if choice E says:

There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs (containing a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish) with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Then I'd say this is the right answer. Otherwise I think this question is poorly made.
Show more
Hi limitlessliu,

When choice E says "common repertory of mosaic designs", it refers to a "common collection of designs" that the artisans pulled from. There's no reason to assume that three animals, which appear in mosaic designs across the Roman Empire, would not be a part of this common repertory. By definition, "common" means that many artisans, or artisans in several different places, used those designs. If it's known that "a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish" were in mosaics in different places across the Roman Empire, they would essentially automatically be considered to be a part of this "common repertory". So there's no reason that choice E needs to specify that these three animals would be included in order for it to be correct.

Does that make sense? If not, let me know! :)
-Carolyn
avatar
limitlessliu
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 May 2019
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
1
Posts: 3
Kudos: 1
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 11 Mar 2019, 05:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think that makes sense. Thanks!
avatar
limitlessliu
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 May 2019
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
1
Posts: 3
Kudos: 1
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 11 Mar 2019, 05:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Carolyn,

Thinking about this some more, I've gotta say that I'm still not completely satisfied with choice E. Here is my reasoning, it is possible for these conditions to coexist:

1. There exists a common collection of designs throughout Rome that contains a bunch of animals (just not hare, partrige and fish)
2. That hare, partrige and fish are created by traveling artisans

I guess you could say that it is ASSUMED that these three animals are a part of the common collection, but still, it is NOT specified in the answer choice, so why would I assume? My above two conditions shows that there CAN exist A common collection, yet for the conclusion of traveling artisans creating these three motifs in Sepphoris to be true.

Also not trying to nic pick here. I answer these questions with the mindset of questioning every answer choice, so the above are just the questions I raised for choice E, and actual thinking I used while I answered the question.
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
436
 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
 [1]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 20 Mar 2019, 16:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
limitlessliu
Hi Carolyn,

Thinking about this some more, I've gotta say that I'm still not completely satisfied with choice E. Here is my reasoning, it is possible for these conditions to coexist:

1. There exists a common collection of designs throughout Rome that contains a bunch of animals (just not hare, partrige and fish)
2. That hare, partrige and fish are created by traveling artisans

I guess you could say that it is ASSUMED that these three animals are a part of the common collection, but still, it is NOT specified in the answer choice, so why would I assume? My above two conditions shows that there CAN exist A common collection, yet for the conclusion of traveling artisans creating these three motifs in Sepphoris to be true.

Also not trying to nic pick here. I answer these questions with the mindset of questioning every answer choice, so the above are just the questions I raised for choice E, and actual thinking I used while I answered the question.
Show more
Hi limitlessliu,

It's great that you're thinking carefully about questions like this :) However, here you may be slightly overthinking it a bit. Remember that we can (and should) make reasonable assumptions in order to answer these kinds of questions. Also remember that we are always looking for the best answer, which may not be a perfect one. So even though this answer many not be perfect, it's exactly the kind of answer that you'll see on the actual GMAT, so it's good to learn to recognize the kind of thought process that should be followed here.

I hope that makes sense! :)
-Carolyn
avatar
sam2112
avatar
Joined: 10 May 2020
Last visit: 21 Mar 2021
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 23 May 2020, 00:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.
avatar
KeepMovingForward
avatar
Joined: 23 Mar 2020
Last visit: 15 Jan 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 992
Posts: 14
Kudos: 9
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 21 Aug 2020, 23:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,

Would like to give my two cents if helpful :-


(A) The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area. -->Stones are not in issue here. The motifs and artists are.

(B) There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. --> Negate this.
There is a single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. Still artist will have to travel if that plave is not in city. Hence, travelling artist.

(C) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. --> Negate this. Motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. Still cannot conclude that the artists did not travel.

(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.--> Even if it is not identifiable, the artists could be travelling.

(E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. --> Negate this. Negation will mean artists won't have necessity to travel.

Thanks!
avatar
aygulismayilova
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2017
Last visit: 28 Jan 2021
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 16
Concentration: Finance
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 16 Nov 2020, 13:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey,

I stuck between B and E. My reasoning to favor B is that if there is no single region to which all the species are native, then the people who created those mosaics are coming from various regions. Therefore, they are considered travelling artisans.

Please explain the flaw in my reasoning.

Thanks in advance.
avatar
mba757
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Last visit: 04 Aug 2022
Posts: 305
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)
GPA: 3.3
Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)
Posts: 305
Kudos: 94
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 19 Dec 2020, 13:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.
Out of scope – doesn’t matter what TYPE of stone/material the mosaics were COMPOSED of…

B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
This doesn’t bridge the gap to the fact that it could’ve all been made by traveling artisans.

C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
This doesn’t have to be true. If so, cool. If not, who cares?

D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
This goes directly against the conclusion. Weakener. If all the animal figures were known, then why would specifically traveling artisans been the probable people who made these mosaics.

E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.
So this bridges it. If there WAS a common repertory then it would be silly to think it was traveling artisans who would have “very likely” created the mosaics…
User avatar
Fdambro294
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Last visit: 20 Aug 2025
Posts: 1,350
Own Kudos:
741
Given Kudos: 1,656
Posts: 1,350
Kudos: 741
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 25 Dec 2020, 01:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I believe that I find myself in this trap sometimes as well.

A statement can strengthen or support the conclusion, yet NOT be a necessary assumption to get from the Supporting Premises to the Conclusion.

I think if B were true, you could say that it makes it slightly more likely that traveling artisans created these mosaics. After all, if they are from regions all over, it might make sense that a traveling artisan would have drawn these.

However, is the statement from B absolutely necessary for the logic of the argument to work?

The author says these mosaics contained pictures of animals that are not local. Based on this major premise, he concludes it must have been a traveling artisan that made these mosaics.

B isn’t necessary to “connect” or “glue” the facts to the Conclusion. Even if there is not a single region to which all the animals are native, is it necessary to assume this fact to conclude that traveling artisans made the mosaics? Not really.

However, negate E. The whole argument is based pretty much on this fact that the animals don’t exist in the city, so some traveling artisan must have made them.

But if there WERE a common knowledge base, the artisans in the city could have easily made these mosaics and the author’s argument doesn’t make as much sense anymore.

Does anything help? I hope it came across clear, I don’t envy any GMAT tutor who has to explain these questions on a daily basis.


aygulismayilova
Hey,

I stuck between B and E. My reasoning to favor B is that if there is no single region to which all the species are native, then the people who created those mosaics are coming from various regions. Therefore, they are considered travelling artisans.

Please explain the flaw in my reasoning.

Thanks in advance.
Show more

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
testtaker479
avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 04 May 2021
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 27 Dec 2020, 18:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think it would be helpful to get an expert view on the use of negatives here, as upon first read the options sound a bit gibberish.
For example, in my mind how I was translating:
a. Sepphoris mosaics contain some or no stones found naturally in the area
b. Species are a from more than one region
Etc.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [3]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 27 Dec 2020, 20:08
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
testtaker479
I think it would be helpful to get an expert view on the use of negatives here, as upon first read the options sound a bit gibberish.
For example, in my mind how I was translating:
a. Sepphoris mosaics contain some or no stones found naturally in the area
b. Species are a from more than one region
Etc.
Show more
You have to consider the logic of what a choice says to determine how to negate it.

A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.

B. There is a no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.

C. No Some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

D. All None of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.
User avatar
Basshead
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2024
Posts: 925
Own Kudos:
301
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Posts: 925
Kudos: 301
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 25 Sep 2021, 06:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
- We're told that excavations of the city of Sepphoris uncovered mosaics depicting several animal species.
- Most of these species did not live in this region at the time.
- The argument concludes that since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

In short: Since the species didn't live in the region, the mosaics were created by traveling artisans from another region.

Before looking at the choices, we can see that this argument is fairly weak. Can we not gather information about these species from elsewhere?

Let's look through the options:

A - Types of stones is irrelevant. Remember, the conclusion is that the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire. Whether the types of stones were native to the region is not important.

B - Do the species all have to be from a single region? No. They species can be from two, three, or even four regions. This distinction is not necessary.

C - The argument doesn't depend on this. The motifs can also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

D - Do all the animal figures have to be readily identifiable? Perhaps there are some that are not identifiable. This statement is not a necessary assumption to the argument.

E - Interesting. If there was a common repertory of mosaic designs among artisans, then it's possible the mosaics were created by artisans in the Sepphoris. E is the answer.
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
 [1]
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
 [1]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 05 Oct 2021, 01:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


(A) The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.

(B) There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.

(C) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

(E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.


Let’s look at the stimulus given.


Premises- Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish.
Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities (reason)

Conclusion- the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.


We need to find the assumption of the argument.
Let’s take a look at the options.


(A) The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.

The conclusion is that the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire because these mosaics depict animals not found in the Sepphoris region but found in other parts of the Roman Empire.
Whether the mosaics were composed of stones found in the Sepphoris region or some other region is not relevant to the argument. Eliminate.

(B) There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
Where the species belong is again out of scope. The conclusion is that these motifs were created by traveling artisans. We need to find an option that helps us confirm that. Eliminate.

(C) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
Same as B. Eliminate

(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
So? Does it prove that the motifs were created by traveling artisans? Eliminate

(E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Bingo. Option E says that there was no common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. This confirms that they would have seen/ come to know of these animals found in the designs when they travelled to other parts of the Roman Empire.
Correct.

VP
GMAT SME
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 04 Aug 2022, 04:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja, MartyTargetTestPrep, CrackverbalGMAT

Hello,

for assumptions questions, if we don't assume the answer choice to be true, the conclusion made in the argument can't be true.

Negate (E): There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

How can we conclude from negating (E) that it was NOT likely that traveling artisans who made the mosaics? It seems to only weaken the conclusion, but not completely eliminate it.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [1]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 04 Aug 2022, 05:05
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi

Hello,

for assumptions questions, if we don't assume the answer choice to be true, the conclusion made in the argument can't be true.

Negate (E): There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

How can we conclude from negating (E) that it was NOT likely that traveling artisans who made the mosaics? It seems to only weaken the conclusion, but not completely eliminate it.
Show more
The negated version of (E) doesn't prove the conclusion incorrect, but it does destroy the support for the conclusion that it is likely that traveling artisans made the mosaics. So, (E) is an assumption upon which that support depends.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 04 Aug 2022, 05:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep
hadimadi

Hello,

for assumptions questions, if we don't assume the answer choice to be true, the conclusion made in the argument can't be true.

Negate (E): There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

How can we conclude from negating (E) that it was NOT likely that traveling artisans who made the mosaics? It seems to only weaken the conclusion, but not completely eliminate it.
The negated version of (E) doesn't prove the conclusion incorrect, but it does destroy the support for the conclusion that it is likely that traveling artisans made the mosaics. So, (E) is an assumption upon which that support depends.
Show more

Thanks a lot.

I still have my doubts:

A necessary assumption must be true for the conclusion to follow.

Let's assume not (E) and also assume that it was custom that in each city, only artisans from other regions were allowed to make to mosaics, and also that most people who were artisans were traveling artisans. We could STILL reach the conclusions that it were likely traveling artisans who made the mosaics.

Not (E) doesn't destroy the argument and hence is not necessary. Here is what I mean in an example, take the following statement:

There are many yellow cars in the city.
A necessary assumption is that there are cars in the city. If we don't assume that, there can never be any kind of cars, not to mention yellow ones, in the city.

Thoughts?
User avatar
varshas044
User avatar
Joined: 03 May 2022
Last visit: 03 Feb 2023
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 40
Kudos: 10
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 10 Oct 2022, 10:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Conclusion ----> Mosaics were created by travelling artisans from “other parts of roman empire”
Why?----> because the animals species depicted in mosaics did not live in Sepphoris when the mosaics were created. However, we found the similar depiction in other roman cities.


(A) The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area. --------------- stones? Not our concern. INCORRECT

(B) There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. -------- we are not concerned with what these species are native of. INCORRECT

(C) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. -------- it says that all motifs in S appear in some other roman city. It does not strengthen the argument. INCORRECT

(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species. ------------- if this is true, then okay we can identify the species, but this does not strengthen the argument. INCORRECT

(E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar ------------ if this is true then the mosaic must have been made by travelling artisans. There was no other way to access the knowledge. CORRECT
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 22 Jan 2023, 19:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi - If I negate (C) - i think, this is the inference :

There are some motifs (lets say 10% of all all Sepphoris mosaics ) that are unique to Sepphoris mosaics only.

These 10 % motifs DO NOT APPEAR in the mosaics of other roman cities (i.e. these 10 % specifically ARE UNIQUE to Sepphoris mosaics.)

So, doesnt this 10 % unique MOTIFS in the Sepphoris mosaics IMPLY that

TRAVELLING ARTISANS did not paint these 10 % or could travelling artisans have painted these 10 % unique motifs only

Hence - i thought (C) did weaken the conclusion a bit because these 10 % of motifs (That are unique to Sepphoris mosaics) are not made by TRAVELLING ARTISANS.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 22 Jan 2023, 20:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep avigutman

My question is on interpreting the argument, specifically the yellow highlight below.

Quote:
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Show more

When you read the yellow highlight – what goes through your mind ? Does the yellow imply :

  • Every motif found in Sepphoris mosaics HAS AN IDENTICAL motif somewhere else [JD – I personally thought thats what the yellow meant ]

    OR

  • SOME Sepphoris' MOTIFS are identical ONLY. Not EVERY MOTIF but **SOME MOTIFS** ARE IDENTICAL (one could assume, a hare motif or a partridge motif or a Mediterranean fish motif). There are some Sepphoris MOTIFS unique to Sepphoris

    OR

  • BOTH are probable. We can't say just yet without more information as of yet.


Which did you believe or did you not know, which to believe ?

Thank you
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 22 Jan 2023, 20:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
ReedArnoldMPREP GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep avigutman

My question is on interpreting the argument, specifically the yellow highlight below.

Quote:
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


When you read the yellow highlight – what goes through your mind ? Does the yellow imply :

  • Every motif found in Sepphoris mosaics HAS AN IDENTICAL motif somewhere else [JD – I personally thought thats what the yellow meant ]

    OR

  • SOME Sepphoris' MOTIFS are identical ONLY. Not EVERY MOTIF but **SOME MOTIFS** ARE IDENTICAL (one could assume, a hare motif or a partridge motif or a Mediterranean fish motif). There are some Sepphoris MOTIFS unique to Sepphoris

    OR

  • BOTH are probable. We can't say just yet without more information as of yet.


Which did you believe or did you not know, which to believe ?

Thank you
Show more
The key is to see what matters. So, what goes through my mind is that motifs identical to the motifs already mentioned in the passage appear in mosaics in other cities. The passage does not say whether all motifs or some motifs in the mosaics in Sepphoris are matched identically in mosaics in other cities. So, at that point in going through the question, I don't care because there's no reason to care.

Now, if I needed to decide whether the information provided implies that there are motifs in other cities identical to all motifs in mosaics in Sepphoris, I would say that that idea is not supported. There could be motifs in the mosaics in Sepphoris that are not discussed in the passage.

However, I think that, with regard to the mentioned motifs in mosaics in Sepphoris that involve "a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish," all of those motifs are matched by identical ones in other cities.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts