Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 20:52 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 20:52
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
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, 21:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks so much MartyTargetTestPrep

MartyTargetTestPrep

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.
Show more

I agree on the red. Where I faulted was on the green.

That’s interesting you say the green. I actually cared a lot :(

When I got to the end of the passage – I thought to myself – the author MUST BE ASSUMING (this is an assumption question at the end of the day) – that

 Every MOTIF seen in Sephora’s mosaics must be seen elsewhere

But I think that assumption of mine is 'over-kill'

EVERY Sepphoris MOTIF to have an identical MOTIF elsewhere is perhaps too strong (perhaps needed for a sufficient conclusion)

We instead, need a necessary conclusion

For a necessary conclusion --> we only need the Hare motif / Partridge motif / Midtterenean fish motif to be identical in order to draw the conclusion.

Hence (c) is wrong because of (C) is ‘overkill’ – you don’t need for “every motif” to have an identical motif elsewhere.

Please let me know your thoughts.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 23 Jan 2023, 14:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Thanks so much MartyTargetTestPrep

MartyTargetTestPrep

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.

I agree on the red. Where I faulted was on the green.

That’s interesting you say the green. I actually cared a lot :(

When I got to the end of the passage – I thought to myself – the author MUST BE ASSUMING (this is an assumption question at the end of the day) – that

 Every MOTIF seen in Sephora’s mosaics must be seen elsewhere

But I think that assumption of mine is 'over-kill'

EVERY Sepphoris MOTIF to have an identical MOTIF elsewhere is perhaps too strong (perhaps needed for a sufficient conclusion)

We instead, need a necessary conclusion

For a necessary conclusion --> we only need the Hare motif / Partridge motif / Midtterenean fish motif to be identical in order to draw the conclusion.

Hence (c) is wrong because of (C) is ‘overkill’ – you don’t need for “every motif” to have an identical motif elsewhere.

Please let me know your thoughts.
Show more

I don't think C would have been a sufficient to guarantee the conclusion, either. But I'll get to that.

To answer your first question, when I read "Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities," I think it is referring to the what is mentioned above in the argument: "a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish."

If I were just reading "Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities" on its own, it would be a little more ambiguous whether it meant 'some' or 'all' motifs. But the context of the argument tells a story driving towards the author's conclusion:

--Mosaics with motifs of these animals have been found in this city.
--Weird! Those species weren't anywhere around that city at the time!
--But we've found the same motifs of those animals in other cities.
--Probably someone traveled around, just makin' motifs, and they made the ones in this city.

In the end, I don't know if it really even matters that much whether it's just these motifs were whether it's all motifs that have been found in other cities. The 'jump' to the conclusion is the same: "Oh, well, if the same motifs have been found in other cities, probably some traveling artists made them all."

The question I'm wondering is: Maybe these mosaics weren't made by traveling artisans EVEN THOUGH the same motifs (be it some or all, I'm not too worried about it) appeared in many other cities?

E deals with this question. If the motifs were just well known by artists of every region, the artists in this region could have painted them without being 'from some other part of the Roman empire.'

C is overkill, I suppose, but even being overkill, it does not prove that traveling artisans made all these mosaics. It would still be possible for people in each region to use the same motifs without being traveling artisans.

You have to narrow onto the question of the conclusion! "Were these motifs made by traveling artisans? Or did they appear in Sepphoris some other way?"
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 23 Jan 2023, 22:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Thanks so much MartyTargetTestPrep

MartyTargetTestPrep

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.

I agree on the red. Where I faulted was on the green.

That’s interesting you say the green. I actually cared a lot :(

When I got to the end of the passage – I thought to myself – the author MUST BE ASSUMING (this is an assumption question at the end of the day) – that

 Every MOTIF seen in Sephora’s mosaics must be seen elsewhere

But I think that assumption of mine is 'over-kill'
Show more
Yes, that assumption isn't necessary. It goes further than what must be assumed.

Quote:
EVERY Sepphoris MOTIF to have an identical MOTIF elsewhere is perhaps too strong (perhaps needed for a sufficient conclusion)

We instead, need a necessary conclusion

For a necessary conclusion --> we only need the Hare motif / Partridge motif / Midtterenean fish motif to be identical in order to draw the conclusion.

Hence (c) is wrong because of (C) is ‘overkill’ – you don’t need for “every motif” to have an identical motif elsewhere.
Show more
I think you mean a "necessary assumption," rather than a "necessary conclusion."

In any case, yes, you don't need “every motif” to have an identical motif elsewhere for the argument to work.
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 24 Jan 2023, 07:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you so much ReedArnoldMPREP - your followup really helped.

ReedArnoldMPREP
In the end, I don't know if it really even matters that much whether it's just these motifs were whether it's all motifs that have been found in other cities. The 'jump' to the conclusion is the same: "Oh, well, if the same motifs have been found in other cities, probably some traveling artists made them all."

The question I'm wondering is: Maybe these mosaics weren't made by traveling artisans EVEN THOUGH the same motifs (be it some motifs or all motifs, I'm not too worried about it) appeared in many other cities?

Show more

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 :

Quote:
(C-variant 1)
ALL hare motifs , ALL patridge motifs , ALL Mediterranean fish motifs – seen in Sepphoris mosaics -- are seen in mosaics in other part of the Roman Empire.

or

(C-variant 2)
AT-LEAST ONE hare motif , AT-LEAST ONE patridge motif, AT-LEAST ONE Mediterranean fish motif – seen in Sepphoris mosaics -- is seen in mosaics in other part of the Roman Empire.
Show more

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.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 24 Jan 2023, 10:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Thank you so much ReedArnoldMPREP - your followup really helped.

ReedArnoldMPREP
In the end, I don't know if it really even matters that much whether it's just these motifs were whether it's all motifs that have been found in other cities. The 'jump' to the conclusion is the same: "Oh, well, if the same motifs have been found in other cities, probably some traveling artists made them all."

The question I'm wondering is: Maybe these mosaics weren't made by traveling artisans EVEN THOUGH the same motifs (be it some motifs or all motifs, I'm not too worried about it) appeared in many other cities?


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 :

Quote:
(C-variant 1)
ALL hare motifs , ALL patridge motifs , ALL Mediterranean fish motifs – seen in Sepphoris mosaics -- are seen in mosaics in other part of the Roman Empire.

or

(C-variant 2)
AT-LEAST ONE hare motif , AT-LEAST ONE patridge motif, AT-LEAST ONE Mediterranean fish motif – seen in Sepphoris mosaics -- is seen in mosaics in other part of the Roman Empire.

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.
Show more

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?
User avatar
ChandlerBong
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2022
Last visit: 19 Jan 2025
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
1,237
Given Kudos: 1,013
Location: India
GRE 1: Q165 V165
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Computer Software)
GRE 1: Q165 V165
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,237
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 15 Oct 2023, 07:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB,

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

Thanks in advance. :)
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [2]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det Updated on: 25 Jun 2024, 02:43
Originally posted by KarishmaB on 15 Oct 2023, 23:28.
Last edited by KarishmaB on 25 Jun 2024, 02:43, edited 1 time in total.
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hoogie
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.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack
Show more
Premises:
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)­

Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU
A Hard Assumption Question: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg
 
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 05 Nov 2023, 13:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
MohdZaidKhan
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2024
Last visit: 23 Sep 2025
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 64
Location: India
Schools: Stanford '27 NYU Stern
Schools: Stanford '27 NYU Stern
Posts: 26
Kudos: 1
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 16 Oct 2024, 23:57
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.

P : S MOSAIC CONTAINING NON NATIVE SPECIES IS SIMILAR TO OTHER CITY MOSAIC
C: TRAVELLERS FROM ROMAN EMPIRE CREATED THEM
ASSUMPTION: S ARTISTS NEITHER TRAVELS NOR THEY ARE AWARE OF ART OUTSIDE SEPPHORIS. (E EXACT MATCH )

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. NEGATION :MOSAIC CONTAINS OTHER PART STONES .NEGATION IS SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION .OUT

(B) There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.NEGATION: THERE IS A REGION WHERE ALL THE SPECIES ARE NATIVE , SUPPORTS CONCLUSION . OUT

(C) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.NEGATION :THERE IS SOME MOTIFS EXCLUSIVE TO SEPPHORIS . WEAK WEAKENER OF CONCLUSION

(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.NEGATION: SOME FIGURES IN S MOSAICS ARE UNIDENTIFIABLE : IS IRRELEVANT AS THIS IS A STUDY DRAWBACK .

(E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.NEGATION: THERE IS A COMMON REPERTORY OF MOTIFS FAMILIAR TO ARTISTS IN VARIOUS PARTSOF RE INCLUIDING SEPPHORIS AS WELL . CONCLUSION IS EITHER STRONGLY WEAKENED OR DESTROYED .ANSWER
User avatar
NEYR0N
User avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 94
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 66
Posts: 94
Kudos: 9
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 17 May 2025, 04:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
a - Even if stones are exclusive to Sepp, travelers could still create mosaics at Sepp. Doesn’t break argument.
b - Even if all animals came from one region, doesn't affect who created mosaics.Animal origin irrelevant to who made mosaics.

your thought process of c : If negated (motifs unique to Sepp), weakens because travelers unlikely to create something unique just for Sepp.
c - Even if motifs are unique to Sepphoris, traveling artisans could still have created them specifically for Sepphoris—doesn't disprove traveling artisans. Not required.
d - Recognizability of animals already given; irrelevant.

your thought process of e: If common repertory existed, it bolsters the claim."

e - Actually, if common repertory existed, local artists could copy designs without traveling artisans, weakening (not bolstering) the claim. Thus, the author must assume no common repertory existed.
hoogie
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.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack
Show more
User avatar
Baghyashree
User avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2025
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 19 May 2025, 05:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion: Author wants to prove that mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire. Mosaics of Sepphoris not created by natives.

Premise 1: Excavation gave mosaics depicting animal species
Premise 2: animal species depicted did not live in Sepphoris

Excavation of mosaics with depiction of animals which did not live in the city when created.

Prethinking : Natives did not have the means to depict animals not available in their region

Answer : (E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. - Hence the natives of Sepphoris could not have referred to any repository to create the depictions of animals , and the source of such designs is only from artisans not native to Sepphoris i.e, Travelling artisans

hoogie
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.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack
Show more
User avatar
Pr4n
User avatar
Joined: 23 May 2025
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 43
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q83 V82 DI80
GMAT Focus 2: 665 Q84 V85 DI80
GMAT Focus 2: 665 Q84 V85 DI80
Posts: 91
Kudos: 7
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 10 Jul 2025, 08:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think one thing that I also missed when I attempted this the first time was the fact that the 2 other ans choices which can break the argument are premises if you look carefully.


"Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species"

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

"Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities"

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


Other 2 options are definitely not the answer in the first read leaving with E).


And if you really think about E) once you have crossed out the others, answer is in front of you. If everyone or atleast some (which could be relevant for Sepphoris) in Roman Empire were making the mosaics from the same pool of the drawings then the argument breaks.


Hence,
(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
Pranavsawant
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jun 2025
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 87
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 316
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 87
Kudos: 7
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 28 Oct 2025, 06:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(E) There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Negation of this destroys the argument? Really?
Let's say there was a common repo. Does that mean that travelling artists could not have made the mosaics? How do we know that these elements such as hare etc that are mentioned are contained in the common repo? And even if they are, I can't rule out that the travelling artists didn't make it. Sure, it gives us a case for why it might happen that the local artisans made it but does it destroy the argument? I'm not so sure
User avatar
manish8242
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2025
Last visit: 06 Nov 2025
Posts: 48
Posts: 48
Kudos: 0
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 28 Oct 2025, 13:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(D) All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

i marked this one on the following basis. Please correct my reasoning

D says that are the animal figure are identifiable animal repr... which can be true bcz what if there were 100 figures and only 10 of them are identified as animal species so we dont know about the rest 90 figures so we cant claim whether someone else made it or not may be other 90 found out to be made my residents then it will be proved that it is not done by people from roman empire rather by the locals. so till we are not sure about all the figures that has been found we can't say who made them. So this indeed breaks the argument then why not it is the answer? It is the most basic thing that the author needs to assume before saying Roman made them bcz they are not found nearby

hoogie
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.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det Updated on: 07 Nov 2025, 16:03
Originally posted by GMATNinja on 07 Nov 2025, 16:03.
Last edited by GMATNinja on 07 Nov 2025, 16:03, edited 1 time in total.
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pranavsawant
There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

Negation of this destroys the argument? Really?

Let's say there was a common repo. Does that mean that travelling artists could not have made the mosaics? How do we know that these elements such as hare etc that are mentioned are contained in the common repo? And even if they are, I can't rule out that the travelling artists didn't make it. Sure, it gives us a case for why it might happen that the local artisans made it but does it destroy the argument? I'm not so sure
Show more
The conclusion is that the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans. That's much different than concluding that the mosaics were possibly created by traveling artisans.

If (E) is true, then the mosaics could have been created by artisans living anywhere in the Roman Empire. Maybe they were from Sepphoris or maybe they were traveling artisans. So is it still possible that the mosaics were created by traveling artisans? Absolutely, but there is no longer any reason to believe that it was traveling artisans, since the local artisans could have easily made the mosaics themselves.

So, if (E) is true, we can no longer conclude that the mosaics were "very likely" created by traveling artisans. (E) "destroys" the argument regardless of who actually created the mosaics.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det 07 Nov 2025, 16:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
manish8242
color=#0f0f0f All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

i marked this one on the following basis. Please correct my reasoning [/color]



D says that are the animal figure are identifiable animal repr... which can be true bcz what if there were 100 figures and only 10 of them are identified as animal species so we dont know about the rest 90 figures so we cant claim whether someone else made it or not may be other 90 found out to be made my residents then it will be proved that it is not done by people from roman empire rather by the locals. so till we are not sure about all the figures that has been found we can't say who made them. So this indeed breaks the argument then why not it is the answer? It is the most basic thing that the author needs to assume before saying Roman made them bcz they are not found nearby
Show more
But even if only, say, 10% of the figures were hares, partridges, and Mediterranean fish, we'd still be left wondering why those species were depicted at all, given that they did not live in the Sepphoris region. So there would still be evidence suggesting that the mosaics were made by traveling artisans.

Also, we're looking for an assumption on which the argument depends. Imagine that MOST (but not ALL) of the figures were hares, partridges, and Mediterranean fish. Even though that goes against choice (D), it's still strong evidence that the mosaics were made by traveling artisans.

In other words, the argument still works even if SOME of the figures were NOT readily identifiable as representations of known species. So we don't NEED to assume (D) in order for the argument to work.
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts