Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0608:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory....- May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
06 May 2026, 10:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
100% (00:32) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 1
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Giordano Bruno, the Renaissance philosopher, must have been a spy for England during the time he served in the French embassy there. English state records show that a spy who foiled at least two assassination plots against Queen Elizabeth of England was in place in the French embassy in London at that time. Since the spy is identified in confidential English state documents only as "the only clergyman working at the French embassy" at that time, Bruno must have been the spy: Bruno had been ordained a member of the clergy long before he started work at the French embassy.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the force of the evidence advanced in the argument?
(A) Long before his employment at the embassy, Bruno had been excommunicated from his church and thereafter neither dressed nor functioned as a member of the clergy.
(B) During Bruno's tenure in the French embassy, a high degree of tension and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion prevailed between France and England.
(C) English records show that the spy sometimes transmitted information to the English government in French, which was not the language Bruno knew best.
(D) The French ambassador at the time was a man who trusted Bruno implicitly, often defending him from the criticisms of others on the embassy staff.
(E) During the Renaissance, well-educated members of the clergy often served in nonclerical roles as tutors, secretaries, and personal assistants to wealthy aristocrats.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the force of the evidence advanced in the argument?
(A) Long before his employment at the embassy, Bruno had been excommunicated from his church and thereafter neither dressed nor functioned as a member of the clergy.
(B) During Bruno's tenure in the French embassy, a high degree of tension and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion prevailed between France and England.
(C) English records show that the spy sometimes transmitted information to the English government in French, which was not the language Bruno knew best.
(D) The French ambassador at the time was a man who trusted Bruno implicitly, often defending him from the criticisms of others on the embassy staff.
(E) During the Renaissance, well-educated members of the clergy often served in nonclerical roles as tutors, secretaries, and personal assistants to wealthy aristocrats.
06 May 2026, 10:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think option A is the strongest weakening answer.
The argument identifies Bruno as the spy mainly because
the documents describe the spy as:
“the only clergyman working at the French embassy.”
And Bruno had earlier been ordained as a member of the clergy.
---
Option A directly attacks that identification.
If Bruno had already been excommunicated and afterward
neither dressed nor functioned as a clergyman,
then he may no longer properly fit the description
given in the English documents.
So the main link connecting Bruno to the spy becomes weak.
That is why A weakens the argument the most.
---
Why the other options are weaker:
(B)
This only gives background tension between France and England.
It does not weaken the claim that Bruno was the spy.
(C)
It says the spy sometimes wrote in French,
which was not Bruno’s best language.
But a person can still communicate in a language
without it being their strongest one.
So this is not strong enough.
(D)
This does not directly challenge the identification
of Bruno as the spy.
It is more like background information.
(E)
This also does not attack the core evidence used
to conclude Bruno was the spy.
---
So option A is the only choice that directly weakens
the main assumption of the argument.
Answer = A
— Rajdeep
The argument identifies Bruno as the spy mainly because
the documents describe the spy as:
“the only clergyman working at the French embassy.”
And Bruno had earlier been ordained as a member of the clergy.
---
Option A directly attacks that identification.
If Bruno had already been excommunicated and afterward
neither dressed nor functioned as a clergyman,
then he may no longer properly fit the description
given in the English documents.
So the main link connecting Bruno to the spy becomes weak.
That is why A weakens the argument the most.
---
Why the other options are weaker:
(B)
This only gives background tension between France and England.
It does not weaken the claim that Bruno was the spy.
(C)
It says the spy sometimes wrote in French,
which was not Bruno’s best language.
But a person can still communicate in a language
without it being their strongest one.
So this is not strong enough.
(D)
This does not directly challenge the identification
of Bruno as the spy.
It is more like background information.
(E)
This also does not attack the core evidence used
to conclude Bruno was the spy.
---
So option A is the only choice that directly weakens
the main assumption of the argument.
Answer = A
— Rajdeep
Moderators:
