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 0808:00 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, 10:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
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:
91% (01:43) correct
9%
(00:48)
wrong
based on 11
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, provides the most support for the argument?
(A) During the Renaissance the staff of each French embassy always included at least one member of the clergy to officiate as chaplain for the ambassador and his staff.
(B) Several years after his embassy service ended, Bruno was condemned for his philosophical ideas by the pope, who was at that time generally hostile to England and sympathetic to France.
(C) Like the rest of the diplomatic staff at the French embassy, Bruno was introduced to many English aristocrats by the French ambassador.
(D) Bruno was known to his contemporaries as a teacher, and that is how he first gained employment with the king of France, who later recommended him to the French ambassador in England.
(E) The period of Bruno's tenure at the French embassy corresponds exactly to the period during which, according to English records, the spy was transmitting information.
Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument?
(A) During the Renaissance the staff of each French embassy always included at least one member of the clergy to officiate as chaplain for the ambassador and his staff.
(B) Several years after his embassy service ended, Bruno was condemned for his philosophical ideas by the pope, who was at that time generally hostile to England and sympathetic to France.
(C) Like the rest of the diplomatic staff at the French embassy, Bruno was introduced to many English aristocrats by the French ambassador.
(D) Bruno was known to his contemporaries as a teacher, and that is how he first gained employment with the king of France, who later recommended him to the French ambassador in England.
(E) The period of Bruno's tenure at the French embassy corresponds exactly to the period during which, according to English records, the spy was transmitting information.
06 May 2026, 11:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think option E is the best answer here.
The argument is trying to prove that Bruno was the spy.
Main evidence:
• the spy worked at the French embassy
• the spy was “the only clergyman”
• Bruno was a clergyman and worked there
But that alone is still not fully enough,
because another important thing is the timeline.
Option E directly strengthens that missing link.
If Bruno’s exact time at the embassy matches
the exact period during which the spy was transmitting information,
then the identification becomes much stronger.
So E directly supports the conclusion that Bruno was the spy.
---
Why the other options are weaker:
(A)
This actually weakens the argument slightly.
It says each French embassy included
at least one member of the clergy.
“At least one” means there could have been multiple clergymen,
which goes against the statement that the spy was
“the only clergyman” at the embassy.
So A does not strengthen the argument.
(B)
Being condemned by the pope later does not prove
that Bruno was an English spy.
No direct connection.
(C)
Meeting English aristocrats was normal diplomatic behavior.
That does not make someone a spy.
(D)
This only explains how Bruno got the embassy position.
It does not connect him to spying activity.
---
So option E is the strongest support because
it connects Bruno directly to the same time period
in which the spy activity occurred.
Answer = E
— Rajdeep
The argument is trying to prove that Bruno was the spy.
Main evidence:
• the spy worked at the French embassy
• the spy was “the only clergyman”
• Bruno was a clergyman and worked there
But that alone is still not fully enough,
because another important thing is the timeline.
Option E directly strengthens that missing link.
If Bruno’s exact time at the embassy matches
the exact period during which the spy was transmitting information,
then the identification becomes much stronger.
So E directly supports the conclusion that Bruno was the spy.
---
Why the other options are weaker:
(A)
This actually weakens the argument slightly.
It says each French embassy included
at least one member of the clergy.
“At least one” means there could have been multiple clergymen,
which goes against the statement that the spy was
“the only clergyman” at the embassy.
So A does not strengthen the argument.
(B)
Being condemned by the pope later does not prove
that Bruno was an English spy.
No direct connection.
(C)
Meeting English aristocrats was normal diplomatic behavior.
That does not make someone a spy.
(D)
This only explains how Bruno got the embassy position.
It does not connect him to spying activity.
---
So option E is the strongest support because
it connects Bruno directly to the same time period
in which the spy activity occurred.
Answer = E
— Rajdeep
06 May 2026, 19:30
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, provides the most support for the argument?
The argument identifies Bruno as the spy because the spy was described as the only clergyman at the French embassy, and Bruno had been ordained. The strongest support would further connect Bruno’s time at the embassy with the spy’s activity.
(A) During the Renaissance the staff of each French embassy always included at least one member of the clergy to officiate as chaplain for the ambassador and his staff.
This does not help much. It may even suggest that another clergyman, the chaplain, could have been present.
(B) Several years after his embassy service ended, Bruno was condemned for his philosophical ideas by the pope, who was at that time generally hostile to England and sympathetic to France.
Wrong. Bruno’s later conflict with the pope does not show that he was the spy during his embassy service.
(C) Like the rest of the diplomatic staff at the French embassy, Bruno was introduced to many English aristocrats by the French ambassador.
This helps only slightly. Access to English aristocrats could make spying possible, but it does not strongly identify Bruno as the spy.
(D) Bruno was known to his contemporaries as a teacher, and that is how he first gained employment with the king of France, who later recommended him to the French ambassador in England.
Wrong. This explains how Bruno got embassy-related employment, but it does not connect him to spying.
(E) The period of Bruno's tenure at the French embassy corresponds exactly to the period during which, according to English records, the spy was transmitting information.
Correct. This directly strengthens the identification. If Bruno was at the embassy during exactly the same period when the spy was active, the case that Bruno was the spy becomes stronger.
Answer: (E)
Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument?
The argument identifies Bruno as the spy because the spy was described as the only clergyman at the French embassy, and Bruno had been ordained. The strongest support would further connect Bruno’s time at the embassy with the spy’s activity.
(A) During the Renaissance the staff of each French embassy always included at least one member of the clergy to officiate as chaplain for the ambassador and his staff.
This does not help much. It may even suggest that another clergyman, the chaplain, could have been present.
(B) Several years after his embassy service ended, Bruno was condemned for his philosophical ideas by the pope, who was at that time generally hostile to England and sympathetic to France.
Wrong. Bruno’s later conflict with the pope does not show that he was the spy during his embassy service.
(C) Like the rest of the diplomatic staff at the French embassy, Bruno was introduced to many English aristocrats by the French ambassador.
This helps only slightly. Access to English aristocrats could make spying possible, but it does not strongly identify Bruno as the spy.
(D) Bruno was known to his contemporaries as a teacher, and that is how he first gained employment with the king of France, who later recommended him to the French ambassador in England.
Wrong. This explains how Bruno got embassy-related employment, but it does not connect him to spying.
(E) The period of Bruno's tenure at the French embassy corresponds exactly to the period during which, according to English records, the spy was transmitting information.
Correct. This directly strengthens the identification. If Bruno was at the embassy during exactly the same period when the spy was active, the case that Bruno was the spy becomes stronger.
Answer: (E)
