For the period from the eighth century through the eleventh century

artifact: an object made by a human being, typically one of cultural or historical interest
premises:
1) 8th century-11thcentury, the shifting boundaries between Kingdom F and Kingdom G have not been well charted
2) a certain village in a border region between the two kingdoms usually belonged to Kingdom G
3) 9th-century artifacts found in the village were in the typical Kingdom F style of that time
confusion: whether the village was actually a part of Kingdom F in the ninth century or whether it was a part of Kingdom G but had merely adopted Kingdom F's artistic styles under Kingdom F's cultural influence.
choices A-D are all belong to artifact, but in stimulus, it is stated that artifacts found in the village cannot prove the village is a part of F, so other artifacts found in the village no matter related with F or G, cannot explain anything

GMATNinja Shed some light here as to Why Option E stands correct when it states teeth was found which could indicate since its the village is in a borderline area, it could have been a WARZONE, which explains the people(warriors) in Kingdom G from the herat of Kingdom F.

First, notice that the question asks, "Which of the following would best help." It doesn't ask "Which of the following would prove..."

Choice (E) doesn't need to PROVE anything to be the correct choice. It just has to be the choice that gives us the BEST evidence one way or the other. Is (E) the best of the five answer choices you're given? If so, it's the winner -- and it certainly doesn't need to be perfect.

I hope that helps!

Hi avigutman - how do you read (e) - i am not sure what does the blue modify .



Is the blue, modifying Numerous teeth or is the blue referring to the closest noun, Chemical signature ?

I initially thougth the blue was modifying Chemical signature but i think actually the blue is referring to numerous teeth.

There is nothing modifying Chemical Signature

thoughts ?

jabhatta2 what made you change your mind? What's your reason for thinking that the blue is modifying numerous teeth?

Hi avigutman

I changed my mind because of the words "OF TEETH " in the phrase --typical only of teeth --

How can Chemical signature be "Typical of teeth" ?

Chemical signature can be something "Typical of ON teeth".

Analogy :
Teeth with braces typical only of teeth from people in the 21st century...

Its NOT the braces specifically that is 'typical only of teeth" - its the teeth with braces on them that is "Typical of teeth in the 21st century"

jabhatta2 I don’t follow what’s wrong with the above. Don’t your teeth have a chemical signature? Can’t we say “the chemical signature of my teeth?”

Posted from my mobile device

Shouldn't a trading contract, regardless of in which dialect, have that information about who "owns" the village? I think that's the strongest evidence. Choice E, on the other hand, provides weaker evidence because people can migrate and doesn't provide information about which kingdom the village is a part of.

This is what we are trying to find: whether the village was actually a part of Kingdom F in the 9th century or whether it was a part of Kingdom G but had merely adopted Kingdom F's artistic styles.

Which of the following would, if found in ninth-century sites in the village, best help in determining whether the village was a part of Kingdom F or Kingdom G in the 9th century?

Which object found in 9th century sites best helps in determining to whom the village belonged in 9th century?

(A) A trading contract written in the Kingdom G dialect

From 8th century to 12th century, the village was usually in kingdom G.
A trading contract (I will buy X from you at Y price etc) of unknown date (we don't know if the contract was written in 9th century or 8th or even 10th if the site was lived in in 10th century too) will not mention whether the village belongs to kingdom F or kingdom G. A trading contract is between two parties (whether people or village or kingdoms etc) We don't know what other details it has.

Hence (A) is not correct.

Hi Experts GMATNinja KarishmaB Bunuel

I have a serious doubt regarding option choice (E).



It can be possible that a good part of the population lived in Kingdom F during their childhood and later moved to the other side or vice versa. This option is not clear in understanding the fact asked in Q.

Rather option (A) says



If the trading contract was in Kingdom G's dialect, it is quite possible that it was not between the two kingdoms since dialect of Kingdom F would be different so, there must not be a trade contract between Kingdom G & F.

Please let me know what am I getting wrong???

Thanks!

Option (E) is the best of the lot, not perfect. Certainly there are various possibilities but option (E) is the most helpful out of the given 5 options.

Option (A) is not. There are no details given about the trading contract. The most important of those - was it between two kingdoms, two villages or two merchants? When was it written? (No connection given to ninth century, the time period we are interested in)
Also look at my post above.

The argument states that for the period from the eighth century through the eleventh century, the boundaries between Kingdom F and Kingdom G were not well charted. Although a certain village in a border region usually belonged to Kingdom G, ninth-century artifacts found in the village were in the typical Kingdom F style of that time. It is unclear whether the village was actually a part of Kingdom F or Kingdom G in the ninth century or whether it was a part of Kingdom G but had merely adopted Kingdom F's artistic styles under Kingdom F's cultural influence.

The question asks which of the following, if found in ninth-century sites in the village, would best help determine whether the village was a part of Kingdom F or Kingdom G in the ninth century.

Option (A), a trading contract written in the Kingdom G dialect, would not provide definitive evidence about the village's affiliation. It could suggest that Kingdom G was involved in trade with the village, but it does not indicate whether the village was part of Kingdom G or Kingdom F.

Option (B), a drawing of a dwelling complex known to have existed on the border of Kingdom F and Kingdom G in the ninth century, would not necessarily help determine whether the village was part of Kingdom F or Kingdom G. It could suggest that the village was on the border of the two kingdoms, but it does not provide conclusive evidence about the village's affiliation.

Option (C), knives and other utensils made from metal typical of ninth-century mining sites in Kingdom F, could suggest that the village was part of Kingdom F. However, it is possible that Kingdom G also used metal from Kingdom F mining sites, so this evidence is not definitive.

Option (D), some fragments of pottery made in the Kingdom G style from the seventh century out of materials only found in Kingdom F, is not relevant to determining the village's affiliation in the ninth century. The argument only discusses ninth-century artifacts found in the village, so evidence from the seventh century would not help determine the village's affiliation at that time.

Option (E), numerous teeth from the ninth century with a chemical signature typical only of teeth from people who had grown up in the heart of Kingdom F, would be the best option for determining the village's affiliation in the ninth century. If the chemical signature of the teeth matches that of people who grew up in Kingdom F, it would suggest that the people in the village were part of Kingdom F in the ninth century. This evidence is more definitive than the other options, as it directly relates to the affiliation of the people living in the village.

Therefore, option (E) would be the best option for determining whether the village was part of Kingdom F or Kingdom G in the ninth century.

This question seems vague to me. Can I not argue (for answer choice E) that many people who grew up in the heart of the country could have switched borders when they came to this village and the village could have infact been in the other country?

This question and its options seem very hazy. Although it is an official question, it feels like I can provide good rationale for each option (A,C and E).
For A, if a trade contract was written in the dialect of G, it indicates that the village may be a part of G - but on the other hand, trade contracts are pieces of paper that may move around.
For C, utensils made from material found in F indicates that yes, the village was part of F but on the other hand, there may be trading of materials between kingdoms - so not very strong
For E, numerous people (not most) belonged to F, but those people could be traders who are moving around - so not very strong again
How do we choose one among these three where none cannot provide very strong support?

­When multiple answers seem to be roughly equal, look for a differentiating factor. Notice that A and C are about goods and trade, where E is about people. We already know that tjhe village had items from Kingdom F, so it's not particularly helpful to find more items from F (answer A), or to learn that F and G traded (answer C). We have not been told before that PEOPLE who were raised elsewhere in F were now living in the village. That's a new kind of evidence that adds to the case that the village was part of F. so it strengthens. A and C do not strengthen at all.