It is currently 23 Jun 2017, 20:24

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 52

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 04:22
2
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (02:04) correct 33% (01:23) wrong based on 1687 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
(B) The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by
Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
(D) Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 515
Schools: Wharton

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 04:27
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fiesta wrote:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

A. The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
C. The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by
Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

Premise shows discrepancy b/w Frobisher's soil sample and the two other data points (mining expeditions and modern soil samples). Correct answer must contain an alternate way for Frobisher's soil sample to test positive while explaining the other two data points.

E
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 52

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 05:01
zoinnk wrote:

Premise shows discrepancy b/w Frobisher's soil sample and the two other data points (mining expeditions and modern soil samples). Correct answer must contain an alternate way for Frobisher's soil sample to test positive while explaining the
other two data points.

E

I am extremely confused
conclusion: the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.
evidences:
- Frobisher had soil samples examined for gold content.
- Neither expedition found any gold there
- Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content.

E: Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined. >>>> It clearly weakens the conclusion
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 515
Schools: Wharton

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 05:13
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fiesta wrote:
zoinnk wrote:

Premise shows discrepancy b/w Frobisher's soil sample and the two other data points (mining expeditions and modern soil samples). Correct answer must contain an alternate way for Frobisher's soil sample to test positive while explaining the
other two data points.

E

I am extremely confused
conclusion: the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.
evidences:
- Frobisher had soil samples examined for gold content.
- Neither expedition found any gold there
- Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content.

E: Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined. >>>> It clearly weakens the conclusion

The author says the divergent results is a result of the original test being accurate.

He assumes, then, that there is no other explanation for these results.

Which of the answers is saying that he assumes there are no other explanations?
E: Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 32

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 05:39
I guess C, since the conclusion says the method was inaccurate.And one of the possibilty of that could be the method used by Frobisher and the one prevalent in 16th century were different.

Can any one plz point out the mistake in this reasoning.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1381

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 06:15
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fiesta wrote:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

A. The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century. -> this even if negated does not make tyhe argument fall apart
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island. -> this is again weakening the argument
C. The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by
Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century. -> This weakens the argument and is not an assumption
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content. -> this is opposing the written
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.-> IMO -> since if this were true we cannot comment on the authors view about Frobishers analysis

_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 324

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 06:19
fiesta wrote:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

For assupmtion questions: one has to find the link b/w the premise and the conclusion and the assumption has to support the conclusion.

Premises: had soil samples examined; found them to contain high gold content; exploration did not yield any gold
Conclusion: the methods to determine gold content were flawed.

Only E. supports the conclusion and makes it logical. If gold was added to the soil samples then the colclusion does not hold, hence only if we rule out the possibility that no gold was added to the soil sample will this conclusion be justifiable.
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 52

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 06:52
OA: E
It is a ridiculous assumption. Anyway, when I read all explanations, I realize that E is the best. Thanks all
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 515
Schools: Wharton

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 08:24
fiesta wrote:
OA: E
It is a ridiculous assumption. Anyway, when I read all explanations, I realize that E is the best. Thanks all

I think one of the ways GMAT questions trick people is by using correct answers that seem absurd in real life. Remember, this is GMAT universe, not real world...
Intern
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 3

Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 13:49
This happened many times in the past, it's not rediculous at all. Just think, if your sponsor pays a ton of money for your expedition, you'd better have something to show for it. Else no more money for next time/beheading, depending on what era you live in.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1381

Show Tags

21 Aug 2008, 00:26
zoinnk wrote:
fiesta wrote:
OA: E
It is a ridiculous assumption. Anyway, when I read all explanations, I realize that E is the best. Thanks all

I think one of the ways GMAT questions trick people is by using correct answers that seem absurd in real life. Remember, this is GMAT universe, not real world...

Its just which best among the LOT hardly matters whether its feasible in real world DONT ever apply the personal fundae its just whats given in the premises
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Manager
Status: I rest, I rust.
Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 122
Schools: ISB - Co 2013
WE 1: IT Professional since 2006

Show Tags

25 Nov 2010, 19:46
fiesta wrote:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
(B) The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by
Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
(D) Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

E
Have come across this question quite a number of times.
_________________

Respect,
Vaibhav

PS: Correct me if I am wrong.

Manager
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 135

Show Tags

25 Nov 2010, 21:28
E fits best
_________________

Trying to make CR and RC my strong points

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 288
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT Date: 08-27-2012
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)

Show Tags

25 Nov 2010, 23:02
can anyone please explain why C is not a correct option??
i am agree with C.
E doesn't make sense to me.
can any one tell me, where can i find the correct solution of this question apart from this discussion.?
_________________

kudos me if you like my post.

Attitude determine everything.
all the best and God bless you.

Intern
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 8

Show Tags

26 Nov 2010, 12:33
321kumarsushant wrote:
can anyone please explain why C is not a correct option??
i am agree with C.
E doesn't make sense to me.
can any one tell me, where can i find the correct solution of this question apart from this discussion.?

321kumarsushant:
Option C says that when Frobisher examined the soil sample for gold he used a different method than anyone else was using back in the 1500s . Even if this is true, this statement does not affect the conclusion at all.
If choice C said "The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the twenty first century.", then it would be a contender for the correct answer.
Hope that helps.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7440
Location: Pune, India

Show Tags

26 Nov 2010, 21:31
11
KUDOS
Expert's post
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fiesta wrote:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
(B) The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by
Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
(D) Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

Let us read the question stem first. We are looking for an assumption. An assumption is a necessary missing premise. We are looking for the option that needs to be true for the conclusion to be true.

Premises:
Frobisher had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content.
Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions.
Neither expedition found any gold there.
Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content.

Tell me, when you read the above premises, what possibilities come to mind? Frobisher had samples examined. High gold content was reported. No gold was actually found. Modern analysis show very low gold content.

The following possibilities come to my mind:
1. Either there was gold and before the expeditions were sent, it was mined (very unlikely!)
2. His methods were inaccurate.

Conclusion:
The methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

If I am concluding that his methods were inaccurate, then I am assuming that no one added gold to his samples and gold was not mined before the expeditions were sent. (Technically, gold could have been added and his methods could have been inaccurate too but lets not mess with that.)
Hence option (E) is an assumption.
Also, use you can use assumption negation technique to see that it is the right answer.
I negate (E) : Gold was added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

I can not conclude now that his methods were inaccurate.
Hence (E) is the correct answer.

Option (C) is not correct. We did not assume in the argument that his methods were different. They could have been the same ones generally used in the 16th century, It is possible that 16th century methods were not accurate.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 288
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT Date: 08-27-2012
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)

Show Tags

27 Nov 2010, 00:13
suesie970 wrote:
321kumarsushant wrote:
can anyone please explain why C is not a correct option??
i am agree with C.
E doesn't make sense to me.
can any one tell me, where can i find the correct solution of this question apart from this discussion.?

321kumarsushant:
Option C says that when Frobisher examined the soil sample for gold he used a different method than anyone else was using back in the 1500s . Even if this is true, this statement does not affect the conclusion at all.
If choice C said "The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the twenty first century.", then it would be a contender for the correct answer.
Hope that helps.

hey Suesie,
now i am agree with E.
_________________

kudos me if you like my post.

Attitude determine everything.
all the best and God bless you.

Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 84
Location: India

Show Tags

27 Nov 2010, 08:01
E.

Gold content in two studies can be different if one of the samples had been adulterated with gold while it was being shipped from the island to the lab where it was examined. This argument relies on properly identifying the conclusion (and premises) . Conclusion is that F's method were wrong. Only assumption mentioned in E, if negated, can defy the conclusion

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 215
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.59
WE: Corporate Finance (Entertainment and Sports)

Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 15:59
+1 E

fiesta wrote:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
(B) The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by
Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
(D) Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 5

Show Tags

21 Dec 2010, 15:25
Frobisher could have mistakely examined for gold on any other island as well too. In that case D would be a choice. Please explain why this option is out.
Re: CR: gold content   [#permalink] 21 Dec 2010, 15:25

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 62 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Soil scientists studying the role of compost in horticulture 1 14 Jun 2017, 01:06
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil 0 22 Sep 2016, 07:14
5 When soil is plowed in the spring, pigweed seeds that have 11 11 Jul 2015, 12:47
31 Rye sown in the fall and plowed into the soil in early 26 03 Oct 2016, 23:07
1 Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil 4 14 Oct 2015, 00:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by