Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 18:56 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 18:56 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. 
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
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:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (02:16) correct
30%
(02:27)
wrong
based on 288
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
06 May 2026, 18:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
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?
The argument identifies Bruno as the spy because the spy was called “the only clergyman” at the embassy, and Bruno had once been ordained. The weak point is whether Bruno would actually have been considered or described as a clergyman while working at the embassy.
(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.
Correct. If Bruno had been excommunicated and no longer dressed or functioned as clergy, then the label “the only clergyman working at the French embassy” would not clearly point to Bruno. This seriously weakens the identification.
(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.
Wrong. This may make spying plausible, but it does not weaken the evidence that Bruno was the spy.
(C) English records show that the spy sometimes transmitted information to the English government in French, which was not the language Bruno knew best.
Wrong. Not knowing French best does not mean Bruno could not use French.
(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.
Wrong. This could even help explain how Bruno might have operated as a spy without suspicion.
(E) During the Renaissance, well-educated members of the clergy often served in nonclerical roles as tutors, secretaries, and personal assistants to wealthy aristocrats.
Wrong. This makes it more plausible that a clergyman could work at an embassy in a nonclerical role, so it does not weaken the argument.
Answer: (A)
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the force of the evidence advanced in the argument?
The argument identifies Bruno as the spy because the spy was called “the only clergyman” at the embassy, and Bruno had once been ordained. The weak point is whether Bruno would actually have been considered or described as a clergyman while working at the embassy.
(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.
Correct. If Bruno had been excommunicated and no longer dressed or functioned as clergy, then the label “the only clergyman working at the French embassy” would not clearly point to Bruno. This seriously weakens the identification.
(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.
Wrong. This may make spying plausible, but it does not weaken the evidence that Bruno was the spy.
(C) English records show that the spy sometimes transmitted information to the English government in French, which was not the language Bruno knew best.
Wrong. Not knowing French best does not mean Bruno could not use French.
(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.
Wrong. This could even help explain how Bruno might have operated as a spy without suspicion.
(E) During the Renaissance, well-educated members of the clergy often served in nonclerical roles as tutors, secretaries, and personal assistants to wealthy aristocrats.
Wrong. This makes it more plausible that a clergyman could work at an embassy in a nonclerical role, so it does not weaken the argument.
Answer: (A)
10 Jul 2026, 09:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
OE for reference:
Overview:
The argument concludes that Giordano Bruno was a spy for England while serving in the French embassy in London. The evidence is twofold. First, there is documentary evidence that a spy who foiled at least two assassination attempts against Queen Elizabeth was the only clergyman working at the French embassy at the time. Second, there is evidence that Bruno had become a member of the clergy well before joining the French embassy.
The Correct Answer:
A This answer choice tells us that at the relevant time Bruno was not in fact a member of the clergy. It tells us, in addition, that Bruno did not do the kinds of things that could have given the impression that he was a member of the clergy. So (A) makes it likely that whoever described the spy as "the only clergyman working at the French embassy" was referring to someone other than Bruno. Thus the case for concluding that Bruno was a spy essentially collapses if (A) is true.
The Incorrect Answer Choices:
B This answer choice suggests that during Bruno's tenure in the French embassy, the two countries were probably spying heavily on the other. This sort of observation about the general state of affairs, however, neither strengthens nor weakens the specific case made for Bruno being a spy for England in the French embassy.
C There could be many reasons why Bruno would sometimes transmit information to the English in French even if it wasn't his best language. For example, it may have been the only language he had in common with the English. So the claim that the spy sometimes communicated in French provides no reason to think that Bruno was not the spy.
D This answer choice tells us that Bruno, if he was a spy while serving in the French embassy, managed not to arouse suspicion in the French ambassador. The argument suggests that the spy, whoever he or she might have been, was very successful, and it is likely that such success would not have been possible if that person had aroused suspicion in the French ambassador. So (D) does not cast any doubt on the argument that Bruno was a spy.
E We do not know whether Bruno was one of the "well-educated members of the clergy." In addition, even if he was, it is not clear that Bruno served in a nonclerical role while serving in the French embassy. In short, (E) does not weaken the case for considering Bruno a spy because it is not even clear that (E) has anything to do with the relevant phase of Bruno's life and career.
Overview:
The argument concludes that Giordano Bruno was a spy for England while serving in the French embassy in London. The evidence is twofold. First, there is documentary evidence that a spy who foiled at least two assassination attempts against Queen Elizabeth was the only clergyman working at the French embassy at the time. Second, there is evidence that Bruno had become a member of the clergy well before joining the French embassy.
The Correct Answer:
A This answer choice tells us that at the relevant time Bruno was not in fact a member of the clergy. It tells us, in addition, that Bruno did not do the kinds of things that could have given the impression that he was a member of the clergy. So (A) makes it likely that whoever described the spy as "the only clergyman working at the French embassy" was referring to someone other than Bruno. Thus the case for concluding that Bruno was a spy essentially collapses if (A) is true.
The Incorrect Answer Choices:
B This answer choice suggests that during Bruno's tenure in the French embassy, the two countries were probably spying heavily on the other. This sort of observation about the general state of affairs, however, neither strengthens nor weakens the specific case made for Bruno being a spy for England in the French embassy.
C There could be many reasons why Bruno would sometimes transmit information to the English in French even if it wasn't his best language. For example, it may have been the only language he had in common with the English. So the claim that the spy sometimes communicated in French provides no reason to think that Bruno was not the spy.
D This answer choice tells us that Bruno, if he was a spy while serving in the French embassy, managed not to arouse suspicion in the French ambassador. The argument suggests that the spy, whoever he or she might have been, was very successful, and it is likely that such success would not have been possible if that person had aroused suspicion in the French ambassador. So (D) does not cast any doubt on the argument that Bruno was a spy.
E We do not know whether Bruno was one of the "well-educated members of the clergy." In addition, even if he was, it is not clear that Bruno served in a nonclerical role while serving in the French embassy. In short, (E) does not weaken the case for considering Bruno a spy because it is not even clear that (E) has anything to do with the relevant phase of Bruno's life and career.
