PriyamRathor wrote:
Hello
EducationAisle AjiteshArunThe entire thread does not talk about OPTION D.
Let's negate OPTION D
Frobisher did
not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
So , IF F had wrong soil samples (instead of Kodlunarn Island, it had soil of other Canadian Island) then the CONCLUSION is broken down as it was not the method which was inaccurate rather the sample was inaccurate instead.
Hence, I found OPTION D correct.
Please guide.
Hi PriyamRathor,
We can't go directly from this:
PriyamRathor wrote:
Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
to this:
PriyamRathor wrote:
F had wrong soil samples (instead of Kodlunarn Island, it had soil of other Canadian Island)
Have a look at the following statements:
1. In 2010, a tutor took the GMAT and scored 700.
2. In 2020, that tutor took the GMAT again and scored 750.
3. Therefore, at some point during his or her career, the tutor must have become better at taking the GMAT.
Does this argument assume that in 2010, the tutor did not take the GRE? Keep in mind that taking the GRE does not automatically mean that the tutor could not have taken the GMAT. That is, it's possible for a tutor to have taken both exams in the same year.
Similarly, look at option D:
JCLEONES wrote:
(D) Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
The question tells us that F had soil from KI tested. The only thing that option D tells us is that he did not get soil samples from other Canadian islands tested. The negation of D ("F did have soil samples from at least one other Canadian island examined for gold content") does not tell us that F did not get those samples from KI.
In other words, the samples D talks about are
in addition to (not "instead of") those from KI.
_________________
Free Comprehensive CR Course: youtube.com/@DelvAcademy/playlists