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

It is currently 13 Dec 2019, 03:40

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 293
Location: Illinois
From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2004, 09:44
1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:52) correct 36% (02:16) wrong based on 117 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia was established around 1000 B.C. However, new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older: tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn from the new evidence?

(A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement

(B) The pieces of pottery and fragments of statues that were analyzed come from several parts of the site

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber

(D) The site has yielded many more samples of pottery and statuary than of building timber

(E) The type of pottery found at the site is similar to a type of pottery associated with civilizations that existed before 1000 B.C.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1401
Location: NewJersey USA
Re: From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2004, 09:57
Yeah I am so happy. Did you happen to choose C? I dont blame you if you did because I did type C before I changed my mind.

The argument is talking about a particular civilization, not some other ancient civilization that existed there before or not something that came later. If this happens then it is possible that there is a mixup of few things that were used earlier. If you show something that casts doubt on the originality of the artifacts or the timber then in effect u have questioned the argument.

A says the timber bore marks used by earlier settlement meaning the timber is not original to the civilization under question ( Well u can refute this as well but not very strongly because u are looking for uniqueness of recovered things that distinguish different civilizations )

C is close because u can say that the tests that determine the age of timber may not be accurate because they are old compared to new tests that determine the age of pottery. You cannot conclusively say this.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 293
Location: Illinois
Re: From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2004, 10:04
anandnk wrote:
Yeah I am so happy. Did you happen to choose C? I dont blame you if you did because I did type C before I changed my mind.

The argument is talking about a particular civilization, not some other ancient civilization that existed there before or not something that came later. If this happens then it is possible that there is a mixup of few things that were used earlier. If you show something that casts doubt on the originality of the artifacts or the timber then in effect u have questioned the argument.

A says the timber bore marks used by earlier settlement meaning the timber is not original to the civilization under question ( Well u can refute this as well but not very strongly because u are looking for uniqueness of recovered things that distinguish different civilizations )

C is close because u can say that the tests that determine the age of timber may not be accurate because they are old compared to new tests that determine the age of pottery. You cannot conclusively say this.


Well actually, I chose D, because I thought tthat it can provide better generalization for the older conclusion. (There is only one piece of new evidence cited in the passage).

Anyhow your explanationmake sense. But I think it is very vague.

I removed A because I considered the settlement mentioned in the passage and the one mentioned in the A same. Which actually lead to conclusion that both theories (new and old) are wrong but I did not pay much attention to that.
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 869
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Reviews Badge
Re: From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2019, 07:34
OA added and bumping for further discussion
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Need an expert to grade your AWA? Go: Here
Want to know your Business School chances? Go: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Jun 2019
Posts: 30
Re: From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2019, 03:21
Here a little bit of pre- thinking can help ...argument here assumes that the sample of timber discovered later might not be used from the earlier period maybe that was 100 years old from that 1000bc period and was actually preserved from the older period
option A does the same it tells that the timber part was actually salvaged from the earlier period or was the relic of much older period.
so, this clearly weakens the argument.
ways to weaken the argument
1) strengthen the objection
2) weaken the premise
3) weaken the assumption ( BEST)
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 224
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Dec 2019, 02:46
2
nightblade354 wrote:
OA added and bumping for further discussion

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia was established around 1000 B.C. However, new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older: tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn from the new evidence?


Pre-thinking

The argument talks about the way a settlement was dated. Pottery initially was the evidence used to draw the conclusion according to which the settlement dated at 1000 BC. But the timber recently found dates way earlier and hence the settlement is older per the author.

Now let's find the assumption here.

Falsification scenario: What if the timber used was imported from and older settlement/population? In such case the argument breaks.

Assumption: The timber was not imported from an older settlement



POE:


(A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement
In line with our pre-thought assumption

(B) The pieces of pottery and fragments of statues that were analyzed come from several parts of the site
Irrelevant

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber
Does the time when a device is built an indicator of accuracy? NO. Hence incorrect

(D) The site has yielded many more samples of pottery and statuary than of building timber
irrelevant

(E) The type of pottery found at the site is similar to a type of pottery associated with civilizations that existed before 1000 B.C.
This option is a strengthener
GMAT Club Bot
From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have   [#permalink] 12 Dec 2019, 02:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne