GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Jun 2018, 08:01

### 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 samples from

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 3

### 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.
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 164
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2010, 15:46
chelliyil wrote:
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.

You cannot assume information that isn't stated in the question. With the given information, she/he/whoever draws the conclusion that the method was innaccurate.

There are many things that could have happened but only the things mentioned in the text are valid for the argument
_________________

12/2010 GMATPrep 1 620 (Q34/V41)
01/2011 GMATPrep 2 640 (Q42/V36)
01/2011 GMATPrep 3 700 (Q47/V39)
02/2011 GMATPrep 4 710 (Q48/V39)
02/2011 MGMAT CAT 1 650 (Q46/V32)
02/2011 MGMAT CAT 2 680 (Q46/V36)
02/2011 MGMAT CAT 3 710 (Q45/V41)

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2010, 19:05
1
1
chelliyil wrote:
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.

The argument says that he got soil from Kodlunarn island examined. The Queen sent two expeditions there. The argument does not have anything to do with the other islands. It does not assume that he did not get soil of any other island examined. Perhaps he did and found no gold there or perhaps he did find gold there. We do not know and do not care as far as this argument goes. Here we are only concerned with Kodlunarn.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

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

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 219
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2011, 09:22
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.

E clearly. It's the only one that strays from the original line of the passage.

Susie,

That amendment to option C was a good addition.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 134

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2011, 02:25
1
3
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.

Can anyone help in explaining the answer with some good logic?
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 251
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2011, 05:10
1
Here the conclusion of the agument is that the methods used were wrong
A. since no timelines of Elizabeth's expeditions are given, and in fact it is implied that these were done after Frobisher's exploration - since they were done because of his report only- and since these also didnt find any gold, despite being done in 16th century, Statement A is wrong
B.Weak option - anyway which part of island does modern analysis base itself on - same or not? Since we dont know this, we cant say this is assumption on which the author's argument is based.
C. If methods were different, it doesnt mean they were wrong/ not wrong. incorrect
D. Othe islands are not being talked of here. Incorrect option
E. If frobisher added this gold himself, then both conditions are satisfied- the methods are correct and the soill doesnt have actually any gold. this argument is therefore based on this assumption.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 800

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2011, 11:08
Nicely explained ! Especially the option B.
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 130

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2011, 23:03
IMO ans should be E

For C, we donot have sufficient information to assume whether the method used was different or not, but the use of "modern analysis" indicates that the present day test would be more accurate
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 225

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2011, 06:12
E it is. Nice question but E stands out as the assumption.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 112
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 03:32
Yes E its very simple.

We need to SUPPORT the assumption that METHOD USED TO TEST GOLD CONTENT was inaccurate.
E ) clearly states that Sample was not wrong and no gold was added to the sample .. so he had sample which had no gold yet his study showed gold was present
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 66
Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2012, 04:28
1
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?

Conclusion: Methods used by F to find gold content were inaccurate.

A. The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century. This says that gold content was high in the 16th century. Weakens the argument. Hence, cannot be the assumption.
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
Irrelevant. Same part or different part not mentioned anywhere in the stimulus.
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. The difference in methods does not matter. What the conclusion says is the method, in fact, was inaccurate.
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.Again, irrelevant.
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined. Negating, Gold WAS added to the soil samples before they were examined. If this were true, then F's methods may have been accurate, and measured HIGH GOLD CONTENT. Hence, the conclusion that F's methods were inaccurate falls apart.

Hope this helps
Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 4
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.11
WE: Architecture (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2012, 12:23
It's been assumed that the method was wrong considering no gold was added.
Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2013
Posts: 7

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2013, 17:57
Hey Karishma,

But why not D?

Thanks

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2013, 23:42
Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 136
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2013, 02:57
How could D be a choice?

Negate D and check.

Frobisher has soil samples from other Canadian island examined for gold content.

Even though he has examined soil samples from other islands, his method could still be inaccurate. Thus D would not hurt the conclusion by negation.

_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Posts: 71
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Real Estate

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2013, 07:08
Look at 5 choices:

A) Doesn't support the conclusion: lower gold content today suggests that finding low gold content doesn't imply the inaccuracy of the method.

B) Same as A: "didn't mine the same part" => cannot conclude anything about the method's accuracy

C) out of scope: "the method generally used in the 16th century" is irrelevant. Such a comparison between 2 methods provides no help.

D) The statement is not enough for us to establish any inference about the method mentioned in the original argument

E) Using negation technique: What happens if this stat isn't true? As gold was added to the samples before they were checked, the reported high gold content is due to fraudulence (my own idea!), rather than the method's inaccuracy => invalidate the conclusion.

Pick E.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 59
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15

### Show Tags

16 May 2014, 07:12
Hi Chiranjeev,

The conclusion of the argument questioned the accuracy of the method used by Frobisher . keeping this in mind.

in option D states after negation that Frobisher soil sample is taken form an other canadian island. So doesnt weaken the conclusion. or firstly it is like it doesn't say anything about the from where does the modern analysis has taken soil sample it might be from the same place and secondly in conclusion we are taking about the Method only.

Is my understanding correct?

one more question ,generally in assumption question , if any option shatters the premise, or weakens the premise or just a we get obtain statement after negation which is just the opposite of the given premises does that statement is a valid assumption.

i think it won't fall into the category of new information ,and secondly it should be related to the conclusion ,this could be reasons for not considering the statement as a valid assumption

correct me where I'm wrong.

Thanks
Nitin Singh
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 248

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2014, 01:41
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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 , can I paraphrase the above highlighted explanation as

Negative E - Gold was added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

Now that if gold was added before examination and the examination rightly pointed this out - it clearly shows that the technical method to determine the gold content was not in-accurate ( though the step of fudging sample was morally wrong but that is altogether a different matter)

So negating assumption , destroys the conclusion , hence E it is
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 03:02
himanshujovi wrote:

Karishma , can I paraphrase the above highlighted explanation as

Negative E - Gold was added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

Now that if gold was added before examination and the examination rightly pointed this out - it clearly shows that the technical method to determine the gold content was not in-accurate ( though the step of fudging sample was morally wrong but that is altogether a different matter)

So negating assumption , destroys the conclusion , hence E it is

Yes, that's correct. If Gold was added, we don't know who did it so we cannot blame Frobisher or his methods. All we know is that his methods to determine gold content could have been accurate.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

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

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 166
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2014, 05:17
udaymathapati 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.

Can anyone help in explaining the answer with some good logic?

This question is asking for assumption. So negation technique will work for true answer choice

If we negates the E, then it breaks the conclusion. Any other choice do not break the conclusion
_________________

Re: Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from   [#permalink] 22 Sep 2014, 05:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 55 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by