It is currently 21 Nov 2017, 22:48

### 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

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2011, 20:14
+1 E
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 44

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 232

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 25

Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2011, 02:06
IMO E
_________________

-------Analyze why option A in SC wrong-------

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 25

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 110

### 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

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 110

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

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

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2012, 04:28
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2013
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 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.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 7

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7745

Kudos [?]: 17842 [0], given: 235

Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2013, 23:42

Kudos [?]: 17842 [0], given: 235

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 24

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"

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 24

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

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.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

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

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

### 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

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7745

Kudos [?]: 17842 [0], given: 235

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

Kudos [?]: 17842 [0], given: 235

Current Student
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 120

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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 120

Manager
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 148

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2014, 20:31
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. - If thats the case, then Frob method is correct and Elizabeth 1 should have found some gold. Against the conlusion made by the argument
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island. Again against the conclusion made by 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. No way it relates the method used now vs Forb or It should be like 16th century other method saying gold content low while Forb method stating high gold content. Then this will be true.
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content. - Clearly stated in the argument that Both soil samples are same
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined. If no gold were added to FORB content, then the conclusion is true. It shows that both of them used the same samples yet FORB concluded for high gold content. yet no gold were found and recent research show for low gold Content

Hence E it is!!!!

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 148

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10128

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2015, 22:13
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2015, 00:24
(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.

can someone help me why ( A) is wrong? we assume F's method was correct so, it can possible gold amount today is much lower than sixteenth century.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 6

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10128

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2015, 00:25
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7745

Kudos [?]: 17842 [1], given: 235

Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2015, 23:40
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
eiffel wrote:
(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.

can someone help me why ( A) is wrong? we assume F's method was correct so, it can possible gold amount today is much lower than sixteenth century.

No gold was found in the 16th century either. The soil sent for analysis showed gold. It could have been because it was tampered with or the one analysing the soil messed up etc.
So we are not assuming that the gold content today is lower. Anyway, the comparison of gold content of today with 16th century has nothing to do with the conclusion. The conclusion is only about 16th century gold content.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

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

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17842 [1], given: 235

Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2015, 02:16
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
eiffel wrote:
(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.

can someone help me why ( A) is wrong? we assume F's method was correct so, it can possible gold amount today is much lower than sixteenth century.

No gold was found in the 16th century either. The soil sent for analysis showed gold. It could have been because it was tampered with or the one analysing the soil messed up etc.
So we are not assuming that the gold content today is lower. Anyway, the comparison of gold content of today with 16th century has nothing to do with the conclusion. The conclusion is only about 16th century gold content.

thank you so now i fond why A is wrong

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 6

Re: Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from   [#permalink] 15 Oct 2015, 02:16

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 72 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by