Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 22:27 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 22:27

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 681 [384]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 2583 [107]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4342
Own Kudos [?]: 30779 [50]
Given Kudos: 634
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: 102 [34]
Given Kudos: 15
Send PM
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
30
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
The conclusion of the above argument says "the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire."

Now, why would the argument say that 'traveling' artisans are responsible for these mosaics? Why not artisans who do not travel? This is obviously because, the motifs depicted are not based on creatures found in Sepphoris. However, this 'obvious' argument hides an underlying assumption; the artisans who do not travel, do not have a catalog of motifs that they could simply refer to for their work. This is the assumption behind the conclusion that 'traveling artisans' are responsible for the job.

Answer E!
General Discussion
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 344
Own Kudos [?]: 2293 [9]
Given Kudos: 6
 V25
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
5
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
IMO E.

conclusion: mosaics are created by travelling artisans

D says that all figures are identifiable. This is stated not assumed because stem says "depicting several readily identifiable animal species".
E says "no repertory": means that no scope for local artist to imitate those animals.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 623
Own Kudos [?]: 1952 [9]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V41
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
7
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
hoogie wrote:
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 naturaly 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.

Hey guys, what do you think the answer would be?
anyone who has an idea please share thoughts with full explanation.


Thanks.


Is this a MGMAT Q? Typically MGMAT uses such difficult words and makes it more complex. Jeez! Roman empire. Sepphoris, mosiac, motifs.. What the hell? B T W, I like MGMAT.

IMO E,

If there was a common repertory from where every thing was sourced and developed, it is possible that the designs were done by local artisans and not traveling artisans. Hence E is needed for the conclusion to stay.
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 218
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [2]
Given Kudos: 36
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
2
Kudos
hoogie wrote:
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 naturaly 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.

Hey guys, what do you think the answer would be?
anyone who has an idea please share thoughts with full explanation.

Thanks.


X A - talks about stones, irrelevant
X B - again talks about the "specific" location of the species, irrelevant
X C - even if the motifs from Sepphoris appeared in other regions so what, point is why they are in Sepphoris - irrelevant
X D - all of the animals may or may not be identifiable, we know that at least some of the identified ones were not local
E - even if it states a new fact not included in the original statement, if this assumption were not true, then the "travelling" artisan conclusion would be negated.

E IMO

Thanks, good question.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 165
Own Kudos [?]: 296 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Arg says that since animals were not present in Sepphoris but in other roman cities, mosaics were made by traveling artist from some other place.

E clearly describes the assumption that there was no common repository from where artists can get information of designs.

Please mention in case you want to discuss any particular option
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [4]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 08-30-2012
GPA: 2.64
WE:Research (Retail Banking)
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
from the MGMAT explanation, what they did was reverse the assumption of E. so if they HAD a common repertory of mosaic designs, this would invalidate the entire argument above. Therefore, E. is an essential assumption for the argument presented.
Hope this helps :)
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [2]
Given Kudos: 2
Schools: Katz '18 (S)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V28
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Conclusion --the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman empire.

If we negate E ---We get ---There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman empire were familiar.

So Sepphoris artist were also familar with how to make mosaic -- so conclusion that traveling artisians created mosaic falls apart.

Sepphoris artist if they knew how to make mosaic --- would have made them.

A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in teh Sepphoris area ---out of scope-- it does not talk abt who created
B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native --out of cope
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city -out of scope
D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosiacs are readily identifiable as representation of known species ---out of scope
E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman empire were familiar===correct
avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 580
Own Kudos [?]: 6040 [0]
Given Kudos: 543
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this question! Thanks.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Status:Far, far away!
Posts: 859
Own Kudos [?]: 4889 [4]
Given Kudos: 219
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
4
Kudos
1)Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.
+
2)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.

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

What could be an assumption here? An assumption is something on which the arguments depends on, for example "the mosaics were not created in one place and then transported in all the other cities". This is an assumption that if negated destroys the argument.

That assumption targets the CONCLUSION alone, another type of assumptions is the one that undermines a connection premise/conclusion; example
1)===>conclusion.
An assumption here would be something like "the species were not caught in another region and then transported in the other cities".

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area.
The materials are nowhere mentioned in the passage.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.
Even if this is negated, the argument still holds true, as this assumption does not target a specific part of the argument.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
Negate C: "some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city", so some motifs are unique=> the conclusion is still valid.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
Negate D: "All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are NOT readily identifiable as representations of known species"; even if they are not are NOT readily identifiable, they could still have been made by traveling artists.
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.
This is the assumption needed. If you negate it:
"There was not a common repertory (...)"=> the conclusion is destroyed "the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans".
If there were such repertory, the local artists could have made such mosaics.
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 580
Own Kudos [?]: 4324 [0]
Given Kudos: 197
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
fozzzy wrote:
Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this question! Thanks.



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.

Excavation of city S===> several MOSAICs found...and faces of different animals are depicted on these mosaics.

Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.

most of the identified animal were not found in city S when these mosaics were made.


Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities

identical subject are found in mosaics of other ROMAN cities.

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

author CONCLUDING: mosaics found in excavation 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 naturaly in the Sepphoris area.

conclusion is based on identical faces found and not on types of stone==>out of context
=============================================================================================
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.

we are not worried whether all species which are depicted are found in single region or not....==>out of context

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

even if few motifs which appear in the Sepphoris mosaics..appear in mosaics of some other Roman city.==>still this doesnt affect the conclusion as rest of the mosaics are more likely to be made by travelling artisans==>conclusion still valid
==============================================================================================
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

conclusion doesnt depends on whether depicted animals are readily identified or not.
==============================================================================================
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

now negate this:There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.==>clearly destroys the conclusion...by stating that similarity was possible in different parts of ROMAN city.==>hence this is the assumption.
=============================================================================================
hope it helps
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
GMAT Date: 08-15-2013
GPA: 3.75
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I was completely confused just observing the complex language used - mosaics,motifs,sepphoris.
As i was not able to prethink any answers,so i directly went to the options.
Conclusion is : the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman empire

I was only able to eliminate option D on first look as the passage mentioned about several and not all identifiable animal species.
I tried the negation test and eliminated choice A : even if mosaics are composed of stones found in Sepphoris area, they could still be built by
travelling artisans. B too : even if belonged to single native region then can be created by travelling artisans.
I was confused between C and E and chose C(didnt apply any reason though). E is the correct answer
Could you please explain via E GMAT 3 step process how to resolve this question.
Also, it took me around 3 minutes with this question as i had to first understand the complex argument and then try negation test.
Is there any other choices other than A that can be eliminated before applying the negation test to save time.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [2]
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE:Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
2
Kudos
hoogie wrote:
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 naturaly 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.

Hey guys, what do you think the answer would be?
anyone who has an idea please share thoughts with full explanation.

Thanks.


This is a tricky one. Took me almost 3:10 mins to solve.

Problem here is the wordiness of the options which confuses people.

There are many mosaic designs found in S --> Oddly, the species drawn dont belong to the region of S ---> So, traveling artisans must have made them (Conclusion).

a. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area. Well, here we are not worried about the types of stones, and what these stones are composed of. So, A is out
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.If this options seems confusing, Negate it. There IS a single region to which the species depicted in the S region are native. If so, then one must NOT automatically pick the conclusion and say, Oh it is strengthened. No its not. This particular region can also be S itself! So this option can go two ways: 1. It can be a region which isn't S. 2. It could be S itself as well. Tricky but its good to forgo B
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.SOME motifs appear in the S mosiacs that do not appear in the mosaics of other region. We are not comparing regions. Comparing doesn't tell us anything about who made them. And even if you want to think about it. Again, it can go two ways: It could have been created by people of S and THEY traveled to other parts, spreading their art. Or People of other roman cities traveled and got it to S. So forgo C.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.The species are identifiable. Amazing. but is it helping us identify WHO made them? No. Forgo D.
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 it. There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in.....familiar. Okay I particularly did not understand the meaning or "repertory" but thats okay. I assumed it was some sort of synonym of "collection" and moved on. So if there WAS a common collection - then everyone is Rome could have made them! (Weakening the conclusion 100%) And if there wasn't such a common know-all collection, then someone traveling must have made them! (strengthening the conclusion 100%) Seems to be the best option among st all. Pick this.

Hope this clears some doubts. If there are flaws in my reasoning, please let me know. I'd love to correct them.

Thank u :)
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Concentration: Marketing, Statistics
Schools: Stern '16 (S)
GMAT Date: 10-11-2014
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
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 naturaly 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.

Argument Analysis

Premise
Mosaic containing animal pics found in City S but oddly these animals did not live there when the mosaics were created
Identical motifs in mosaic in other cities in Roman empire

Conclusion
Mosai created by travelling artisans from other part of empire because 2nd premise (p)

Notice:
Since is used before however …. Classical case where GMAT presents the premise supporting the conclusion before the conclusion itself
Question Analysis
Straight forward assumption question

Prethinking
An event has occurred and a possible reason is provided for that occurrence. Other artisans travelling are the reason why the mosaics appear in city S. No other reason is possible for this occurrence.

Answer Choice Analysis
A) The conclusion is based on similarity of design found in other cities and nothing to do with stones found in city S…. WRONG
B) ‘most’ species never lived in city S. and several identifiable species. The answer is an inference that can be drawn but cannot be an assumption. …. WRONG
Remember: Assumption should bring in new information that connects the dots and should not be a paraphrase of an existing premise…. WRONG
C) Contradiction to what has been stated in the argument already. Motifs designs are similar as stated in passage .... WRONG
D) Contrary to what has been said in the argument. Not all are identifiable. …… WRONG
E) Try to negate this. If there was a common knowledge across artists in Roman Empire then it was likely that the reason for design repetition was the ‘common knowledge’ and not travelling artisans. CORRECT ANSWER
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 83 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: Russian Federation
GMAT 1: 530 Q46 V19
GPA: 3.45
WE:Asset Management (Real Estate)
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
I tend to get easily confused with double negative sentences, because it is hard to translate them into the understandable language.

Let me try to convert them to the "normal" language:

(1) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
= Some motifs that appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
Basically double negative = positive, right? With the only exception of the word "Some"

(2) No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
= Motifs in Sepphoris mosaics do not appear in mosaic of other Roman cities.

(3) Motifs that appear in the Sepphoris mosaic do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
= Motifs in Sepphoris mosaics do not appear in mosaic of other Roman cities. (Same meaning as in (2)?)

My example:
(4) No people who eat chocolate, do not eat cookies.
= Some people who eat chocolate eat cookies?

Please, let me know if I translated all 4 sentences correctly?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 440
Own Kudos [?]: 84 [0]
Given Kudos: 147
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
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.


Dear mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert Carolyn, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja,

I can understand E is correct , but I am still confused the negative skill for assumption

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

Q 1: There are double negative words -- No and do not in C, if I need negate C, which one negative word should i negate?

Negative C :

#1 SOME motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. (because the opposite of NO is SOME)
OR
#2 No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman.(because the opposite of DOES NOT is DOES)

Q2:
I have another approach to negate --try to understand what C actually states and then negate it.
C states same meaning that ALL / EVERY ONE motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that does also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. ( if i can deal with this choice by this approach, i think i can do so on choice D )

Negative :

#3 AT LEAST some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that does also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.(because the opposite of All / every one is AT LEAST)
OR
#4 All / everyone motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that DOES NOT also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

See, #1 differs from #3 by different approach, and #2 and #4 are the same meaning that Motifs in Sepphoris mosaics are completely different with those of other city in Roman.

Negative skill is important on Assumption questions,
Unfortunately, it always confuses me a lot , that why I don't like negative skill and use the skill as few as possible.

Please help clarify

Have a nice day
>_~
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 234
Own Kudos [?]: 398 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
Re: Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
zoezhuyan wrote:
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.


Dear mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert Carolyn, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja,

I can understand E is correct , but I am still confused the negative skill for assumption

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

Q 1: There are double negative words -- No and do not in C, if I need negate C, which one negative word should i negate?

Negative C :

#1 SOME motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. (because the opposite of NO is SOME)
OR
#2 No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman.(because the opposite of DOES NOT is DOES)

Q2:
I have another approach to negate --try to understand what C actually states and then negate it.
C states same meaning that ALL / EVERY ONE motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that does also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. ( if i can deal with this choice by this approach, i think i can do so on choice D )

Negative :

#3 AT LEAST some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that does also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.(because the opposite of All / every one is AT LEAST)
OR
#4 All / everyone motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that DOES NOT also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

See, #1 differs from #3 by different approach, and #2 and #4 are the same meaning that Motifs in Sepphoris mosaics are completely different with those of other city in Roman.

Negative skill is important on Assumption questions,
Unfortunately, it always confuses me a lot , that why I don't like negative skill and use the skill as few as possible.

Please help clarify

Have a nice day
>_~


Hi zoezhuyan!

Happy to help :-) Negating can definitely be tricky. If you're unsure how exactly to negate a statement, then start by simply adding "It is not true that..." So for example,

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

--> It is not true that no motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

Now, what does this mean? If this statement is not true, then that means that there could be a motif that appears in the Sepphoris mosaics that doesn't also appear in other mosaics. It does not mean that that is necessarily the case. So a negation of C might be:

There may be motifs which appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

So to negate a statement we don't necessarily need to reverse the negative words -- just add "it is not true that...", think about what that really means, and then rephrase it in your own way (if necessary).

I hope that helps a bit! :-)
-Carolyn
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous det [#permalink]
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne