Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det

Thank you so much ReedArnoldMPREP - your followup really helped.



If I understand, what you mean by the red and the purple above - it is this.

Even if (C) was not over-kill, but instead (C) was more targeted -- (C) would be still wrong.

What I mean by "Targeted" is the following :



You are saying (c-variant 1) and (c-variant 2) would still be wrong ?

(c-variant 1) and (c-variant 2) would not really be assumptions

(c-variant 1) and (c-variant 2) would be more likely -- inferences, but not assumptions

Is that what you are saying, when you mention the red and the purple.

I'm sorry I'm a little confused by the question, but I'll do my best.

C variant 1 is what C basically says. "Every motif in Seph. mosaics appears in some other place's mosaic."

C variant 2 is something like an inference, yes. But it's not necessary (nor sufficient) for the CONCLUSION of the argument. We already know that it is true by this: "Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities"

The question in either C-variant remains: does this REALLY MEAN a traveling artist came to Seph to paint the mosaics, or might something else have happened?

Hi KarishmaB,

Can you please share your reasoning for eliminating option (C)?

Thanks in advance.

Sepphoris had mosaics depicting several animals.
Most of these animals did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.
Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities.

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

The conclusion says that artisans in S did not create these mosaics. That travelling artisans created them because they were found in many cities of Roman Empire. So a bunch of artisans kept going from one city to another creating these mosaics everywhere. What is an assumption here? That say there wasn't a book which was used by various artisans to create mosaics in their own cities. If there was a reference book and everybody used that then we don't need the people to be the same. S's artisans could have created the mosaics in S by referring to that book. Another city P's artisans could have created those same mosaics in P. Then we don't need to have travelling artisans. This is what option (E) says.

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

It negates a different explanation (a common repertory) for the premises and hence is needed for our conclusion to hold.


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

All that the conclusion says is that artisans were from outside. It says nothing about the source of the stone.

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

We don't need this to be true for our conclusion. Whether the travelling artisans saw these species in one place or different, doesn't matter.

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

Not necessary. The premise says " most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region."
It is possible that some motifs in S's mosaics were only present in S - say the travelling artisans created these only in S. The entire argument talks about 'most of the species not present in S' and that these motifs were present in other cities too. It is not necessary that S could have no unique motif.

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

The argument talks about "most of the species..." We cannot apply any rule to "all the animal figures."

Answer (E)

Understanding the argument -
The conclusion is that the mosaics were created by traveling artisans. Because
1. Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities.
2. Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created

Let me give you another argument to explain the argument. Sorry, I am passionate about automotive, so allow me to use an example from the auto world.

An analysis of car advertisements in a remote mountain village reveals that many promotional materials feature sleek sports cars like Lamborghini and Ferraris. However, these luxury cars are rarely seen in the village, as it's not a typical location for such vehicles. However, since similar car advertisements with high-end models appear in magazines from various regions, it's reasonable to say that advertising agencies from other areas crafted these campaigns.

What if all marketing experts, including the marketing experts of this village, went to Ferrari and Lamborgini launches, and the Ferrari and Lamborgini marketing team gave them ready-to-use designs to start marketing in their areas? In that case, we can't say that advertising agencies from other areas crafted these campaigns.

Now, back to our argument, this is what option E highlights: there was a shared repository that everyone used. So, the artisans native to Sepphoris could very well create them, and we don't need TRAVELLING artisans.

Option Elimination -

(A) The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area. - In our argument, if we say the promotional materials are made of plastic, paper, or cloth, does it even matter? No. Out of scope.

(B) There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. - Even if there is a single region, as in our example, say Ferrari is headquartered in Maranello, Italy, while Lamborghini is headquartered in Sant'Agata Bolognese, Italy. Does it even matter to our argument, which is "advertising agencies from other areas crafted these campaigns"? No. Out of scope.

(C) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. - We should know how to negate it. Wear your sentence correction hat. The key part is "No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics." The rest is a relative clause introduced by that. So, the negation is "some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. It means some motifs were unique to Sepphoris. Convert it into our example - some promotional materials were only made for this remote mountainous village. It's possible we can't use the same marketing campaign for a village and city, and on top of this, it is remote and mountainous, so we created something unique for this village. But is it relevant to the argument that "advertising agencies from other areas crafted these campaigns"? No. Out of scope.

(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species. This is equally applicable to natives and travelers. Moreover, the argument already says, "identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities." This is not saying anything we don't know. It's a bit worse; it makes it general. Distortion.

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