Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 20:44 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 20:44
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
avatar
ankit546
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Last visit: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
21
 [6]
Given Kudos: 34
Status:All in for MBA
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.39
WE:Operations (Energy)
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,754
Own Kudos:
37,017
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4,856
Posts: 4,754
Kudos: 37,017
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Skientist
Joined: 02 May 2012
Last visit: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United Kingdom
WE:Account Management (Other)
Posts: 73
Kudos: 314
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Skientist
Joined: 02 May 2012
Last visit: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United Kingdom
WE:Account Management (Other)
Posts: 73
Kudos: 314
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Ankit546

I'd imagine that you're trying to differentiate between a) and c), as the other 3 weaken the argument. I agree with carcass above, and he / she uses the same logic that I did.

When I see two possible answers for strengthen questions, I look at a couple of other elements:

1) How tightly is the answer bound to strengthen the argument? In c) above the wording suggests that it strengthens the argument by talking about eruptions in the correct timeframe. But it is not bound to strengthen the argument; it could be that the eruptions where not related to any events on the island so in that sense it adds nothing (particularly if you consider that there are already signs of volcanic activity in the region). In a) the final scenario (i.e. argument + answer) gives evidence of volcanic activity and a very precise time, both in the correct region.

2) What are the elements of the conclusion that needs proving / strengthening? The conclusion is that a village was destroyed by a volcano in 160BC. The argument supplies evidence for the destruction of the village by volcanic ash but gives nothing for the time (160BC) of the eruption, or its location. Answer c) talks about volcanic activity which is attractive but not necessary, the time (which is necessary) but not the location. Answer a) gives the time and the location. It doesn't give the method of destruction, but this is ok because the argument already contains this evidence.

Hope that helps

B.
avatar
ankit546
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Last visit: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Status:All in for MBA
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.39
WE:Operations (Energy)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bradfris
Hi Ankit546

I'd imagine that you're trying to differentiate between a) and c), as the other 3 weaken the argument. I agree with carcass above, and he / she uses the same logic that I did.

When I see two possible answers for strengthen questions, I look at a couple of other elements:

1) How tightly is the answer bound to strengthen the argument? In c) above the wording suggests that it strengthens the argument by talking about eruptions in the correct timeframe. But it is not bound to strengthen the argument; it could be that the eruptions where not related to any events on the island so in that sense it adds nothing (particularly if you consider that there are already signs of volcanic activity in the region). In a) the final scenario (i.e. argument + answer) gives evidence of volcanic activity and a very precise time, both in the correct region.

2) What are the elements of the conclusion that needs proving / strengthening? The conclusion is that a village was destroyed by a volcano in 160BC. The argument supplies evidence for the destruction of the village by volcanic ash but gives nothing for the time (160BC) of the eruption, or its location. Answer c) talks about volcanic activity which is attractive but not necessary, the time (which is necessary) but not the location. Answer a) gives the time and the location. It doesn't give the method of destruction, but this is ok because the argument already contains this evidence.

Hope that helps

B.

Ya, when i was trying to solve this problem, I thought that premise is mainly about a time frame and volcanic activity. So, I thought "C" might just win it. But a great explanation provided by both you and carcass.

The explanation definitely helped :)

Cheers,

Ankit
User avatar
Abhishek009
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 5,934
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 463
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Posts: 5,934
Kudos: 5,328
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nishith17
Excavations on the now uninhabited isle of Kelton reveal a scene typical of towns decimated by volcanic ash. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to volcanic activity known to have occurred in the vicinity of the island in 160 B. C.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archarologist' hypothesis?
The question asks to find an answer that most strongly supports the archarologist' hypothesis so our attempt must be to prove that the conclusion of the sentence is correct/ state some additional premises in support of the conclusion.

(A) No coins minted after 160 B.C. were found in Kelton , but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.

Supports the conclusion that no human activity was noticed in the island after 160 B.C.

(B) Pieces of gold and pearl jewelery that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following 160 B.C. were also found in several graves on the island.

If jewelry was found in the region following 160 B.C. suggests human being were there in the island after 16 BC and the volcano had no effect.

(C) Most modern histories of the region mention that several major volcanoe erruptions occurred near the island in 160 B.C.

Volcano eruption near the island may not have any direct impact on the island.

(D) Several small jugs carved in styles poplular in the region in the certury between 200 B.C. and 100 B.C. were found in Kelton.

200 - 100 BC can include - 200 BC to 160 BC & 200 BC to 100 BC.

In absence of specific data we would not be in a position to comment.

(E) Drawings of the styles that was definitely used in the region after 160 B.C. were found in Kelton.

Nothing can be specifically said about this option.


Hence IMHO (A)
User avatar
nishith17
Joined: 03 Jul 2014
Last visit: 07 Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 31
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 10-17-2014
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Insurance)
Posts: 25
Kudos: 81
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Abhishek009 I agree with your explanation for Option A but I do not understand why option C is wrong. The argument says that "the destruction was due to volcanic activity known to have occurred in the vicinity of the island in 160 B. C." This implies that there was a volcanic eruption nearby and options C validates that.

Where am I going wrong?
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 11,238
Own Kudos:
43,707
 [1]
Given Kudos: 335
Status:Math and DI Expert
Location: India
Concentration: Human Resources, General Management
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Posts: 11,238
Kudos: 43,707
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nishith17
Abhishek009 I agree with your explanation for Option A but I do not understand why option C is wrong. The argument says that "the destruction was due to volcanic activity known to have occurred in the vicinity of the island in 160 B. C." This implies that there was a volcanic eruption nearby and options C validates that.

Where am I going wrong?

hi,
the argument is about destruction from volcanic activity..
C just confirms the possiblity of volcanic activity during that period but does not help in hypothesizing that the town was decimated in one of those volcanic activities during that period..
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nishith17
Abhishek009 I agree with your explanation for Option A but I do not understand why option C is wrong. The argument says that "the destruction was due to volcanic activity known to have occurred in the vicinity of the island in 160 B. C." This implies that there was a volcanic eruption nearby and options C validates that.

Where am I going wrong?


C doesn't explain that there was damage happened in 160 bc. it only shows that volcano erupted . People could have still been saved as per option C

in option A, it strongly mentions that no life were present after 160 BC. The passage already mentions that volcano happened and now we need to validate whether life survived thereafter or not. option A fits more suitably in the gap:)
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts