Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 02:21

It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 02:21

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Data Insights Questions

Two-part Analysis (TPA)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 16
Sneak Peek: $200 Off GMAT Prep
12:00 PM EDT
-
11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

GMAT Club Olympics 2024 (Day 8): An archaeological excavation team wor

1 2 3 4

SomeOneUnique

Joined: 17 Mar 2019

Last visit: 26 Dec 2024

Posts: 119

Own Kudos:

126

[1]

Given Kudos: 41

Location: India

Posts: 119

Kudos: 126

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 09:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

The conclusion that the found building is a temple of God Luga hinges on only 1 fact - "The building also contained an altar on which were found the burnt remains of fish, most likely offerings to the concerned deity."
Out of all the options, only one option strengthens or we can say supports the conclusion based on 'presence of fish'.
If remains of fish are found along with an altar, it is possible that the building is a temple of God Luga.
Option E is suggested "For".

If we are to assume that 'Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”', this goes against the conclusion because the structure was found outside the raised and fortified “citadel” area.
Option B is suggested "Against".

For - option E
Against - option B

sayan640

Joined: 29 Oct 2015

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,120

Own Kudos:

861

Given Kudos: 786

GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28 Verified score

Products:

GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28 Verified score

Posts: 1,120

Kudos: 861

17 Jul 2024, 09:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

My answer :-

For:- Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
Against:- Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.

Shwarma

Joined: 10 Sep 2023

Last visit: 25 May 2025

Posts: 210

Own Kudos:

193

[1]

Given Kudos: 65

Location: India

Schools: Tepper '27 Ross '27 Foster '27 Kellogg

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q82 V83 DI84 Verified score

GPA: 4

Products:

Schools: Tepper '27 Ross '27 Foster '27 Kellogg

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q82 V83 DI84 Verified score

Posts: 210

Kudos: 193

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 09:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

For - Option 5
Against - Option 2

The not always built of mud bricks was close,
But the 5th statement was more obvious, that fish was given exclusively to lord Luga, is more obvious

2 - for against sys this was outside but in meso temples would be inside the citadel, thus a strong point

Elite097

Joined: 20 Apr 2022

Last visit: 04 Feb 2026

Posts: 739

Own Kudos:

568

[1]

Given Kudos: 346

Location: India

Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27

GPA: 3.64

Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27

Posts: 739

Kudos: 568

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 09:57

Kudos

Bookmarks

For the hypothesis (evidence supporting it):

Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
This proposition directly supports the theory that the building was a temple to the God Luga because it suggests a specific religious practice associated with this deity.

Against the hypothesis (evidence contradicting it):

Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.
This proposition suggests that temples in ancient Mesopotamia were typically located within the fortified citadel areas, not in the "low town" areas where the temple in question was found. This would contradict the placement of the temple to the God Luga in a non-citadel area.

Ans E, B

zeognzeg

Joined: 30 Jun 2024

Last visit: 15 Jan 2025

Posts: 38

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 3

Schools: ESSEC MFin "26 (S)

Posts: 38

Kudos: 40

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 10:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

For: Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.THis explains the remains of fish and proves furthermore that it was a temple for the god luga

Against:Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”
This would mean that the structure found is not a temple, and if it's not a temple, the structure can't be dedicated for a god but would have served another purpose

ThatIndianGuy

Joined: 18 Mar 2020

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 77

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 385

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, Technology

Schools: Schulich '27 (A$) IE (A) Bocconi (I) Rotman '27 (A$) IESE '27 (D) ESADE (A)

WE:General Management (Technology)

Schools: Schulich '27 (A$) IE (A) Bocconi (I) Rotman '27 (A$) IESE '27 (D) ESADE (A)

Posts: 77

Kudos: 65

17 Jul 2024, 10:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia. - buildings could refer to any buildings. We are concerned about particular building
Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”. - out of scope
Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.- we are concerned about the building only
The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region. - This weakens the belief
Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga. - This strengthens the fact that fish which were present on altar were kind of offerings (Strengthens)

Michael909

Joined: 13 Jun 2023

Last visit: 16 Dec 2025

Posts: 31

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 73

Status:Aspirant

Location: Singapore

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy

Schools: CBS INSEAD Jan'25 intake Booth (Chicago)

WE:Asset Management (Finance)

Schools: CBS INSEAD Jan'25 intake Booth (Chicago)

Posts: 31

Kudos: 49

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 10:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts' Global
for the GMAT Olympics 2024

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Admissions Consulting, and more

Given,
Deduced the excavation = temple based on
1) located in low town area outside of citadel and build of mud bricks
2) found fish as offerings

Statements:
1) Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia. Do mud bricks = temple? Not strong for reason.
2) Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”. Always build in citadel - if not always then is it temple? Strong reason for against.
3) Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified. Some = not conclusive, fortified = temple? Not strong for reason.
4) The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region. Not commonly found = temple? Not strong for reason.
5) Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga. Offerings are exclusively to God = it is a temple? Strong reason for temple.

mialanknox

Joined: 15 May 2019

Last visit: 19 Oct 2025

Posts: 141

Own Kudos:

194

[1]

Given Kudos: 99

Location: Switzerland

Concentration: Finance, General Management

Schools: Wharton '26 CBS '26 Kellogg '26 Booth '26

GPA: 4

WE:Investment Banking (Finance: Investment Banking)

Schools: Wharton '26 CBS '26 Kellogg '26 Booth '26

Posts: 141

Kudos: 194

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 10:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts' Global
for the GMAT Olympics 2024

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Admissions Consulting, and more

Given,
Deduced the excavation = temple based on
1) located in low town area outside of citadel and build of mud bricks
2) found fish as offerings

Statements:
1) Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia. mud bricks indicate temple? Not strong for reason.
2) Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”. Always build in citadel - makes us think is it temple? Strong reason for against.
3) Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified. Some = not conclusive. Not strong for/against reason.
4) The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region. Not commonly found = if it is rare then it means automatically that it is a temple? Not strong for/against reason.
5) Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga. Offerings are exclusively to God = it is a temple? Yes. Strong reason for temple.

Oppenheimer1945

Joined: 16 Jul 2019

Last visit: 16 Apr 2026

Posts: 786

Own Kudos:

663

[1]

Given Kudos: 236

Location: India

Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 7.81

Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 786

Kudos: 663

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 10:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

A) This fact does not connect to the deity Luga or temple practices; it only comments on the construction material.

B) weakens

C) Irrelavant

D) irrelvant

E) Strongest Support

For=E
Against=B

Purnank

Joined: 05 Jan 2024

Last visit: 18 Apr 2026

Posts: 680

Own Kudos:

613

[1]

Given Kudos: 167

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q88 V76 DI80 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q88 V76 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 680

Kudos: 613

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 10:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

Select the proposition that, if true, would provide the strongest evidence For the theory that the building was a temple to the God Luga, and select the proposition that, if true, would provide the strongest evidence Against the hypothesis.
Lets evaluate each options.

A. Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia. - Irrelevant to both of them.

B. Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”. - Good option in against - If true, it challenges the location of the temple, making it less likely to be a temple dedicated to Luga.

C. Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified. - Again irrelevant because this doesn’t specifically confirm or deny the building's function as a temple.

D. The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region. - Side tracks - While unusual materials might be interesting, it doesn’t directly connect to the deity or temple function.

E. Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga. - Good option in For - This directly connects the altar's contents to the deity, strengthening the hypothesis that the building was a temple to Luga.

For - Option E and Against - B.

IstudyGMAT

Joined: 04 May 2024

Last visit: 08 Jun 2025

Posts: 15

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 74

Posts: 15

Kudos: 67

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 11:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

We are looking for an answer that strengthens the theory this temple was built for the God Luga and one that weakens. Lets look at the answer choices

"An archaeological excavation team working on the site of an ancient Mesopotamian city found a temple structure theorized to have been a temple to the God Luga. The structure was located in the “low town” area, outside the raised and fortified “citadel” area, and built of mud bricks. The building also contained an altar on which were found the burnt remains of fish, most likely offerings to the concerned deity."

Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.
-this is out of scope, while temples of the gods may have been built out of materials not consisting of mud, the article provides no insight to this so eliminate.
Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.
-this information actually weakens the claim since it gives another reason for why this temple was places in the citadel and why it isnt actually a contributing piece of evidence for why this could be Luga's temple. Essentially, its arguing that this could be ANY temple
Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.
-out of scope, doesnt contribute much to the argument
The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.
-also out of scope, if the article mentioned Luga's temple having stone outside the region it would strengthen but for how the argument stands now its irrelevant
Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
-this strengthens the theory that this is Luga's temple because they found evidence of fish remains in the site. If Luga was primarily given fish for offerings this helps the theory

d_patel

Joined: 16 May 2024

Last visit: 24 Nov 2024

Posts: 57

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Schools: ESSEC MFin "26 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q89 V84 DI79 Verified score

Schools: ESSEC MFin "26 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q89 V84 DI79 Verified score

Posts: 57

Kudos: 71

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 12:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

We are given following information,
1. The structure was located in the “low town” area, outside the raised and fortified “citadel” area, and built of mud bricks.
2. The building also contained an altar on which were found the burnt remains of fish, most likely offerings to the concerned deity.

We need to find additional evidence For the theory that the building was a temple to the God Luga and strongest evidence Against the hypothesis. This is strengthen and weaken question in disguise.

Looking at options,

1. Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.
Neither For nor Against. Even if we they were rarely constructed we cannot say anything about why that place can be temple or not.

2. Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.
This does provide support to go against hypothesis. Structure was found outside citadel area, but if most of the temples were built inside cities, this could potentially raise suspicion about validity of structure being a temple. Choose it for Against.

3. Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.
Neither For nor Against. No information provided about how fortification was related with temple.

4. The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.
Neither For nor Against. Maybe stones were imported for construction of temple or maybe it is not a temple.

5. Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
This provides additional support to thoery of buliding being a temple to God Luga. If fish were given as offering exclusively to God Luga, then this place could definetly be a temple as burnt remain of fishes were found at altar. Choose it for For

AviNFC

Joined: 31 May 2023

Last visit: 10 Apr 2026

Posts: 306

Own Kudos:

366

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 306

Kudos: 366

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 12:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

1. Mud bricks does not establish anything
2. if temples were almost built on citadel, then this building on low town is unlikely a temple- AGAINST
3. other buildings out of scope
4. origin of the material is not in interst
5. If fishes were commonly offered, then remains of fish confirms the deity - FOR

Answer E & B

temulenbatbayr90

Joined: 06 Sep 2022

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 45

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 45

Kudos: 53

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 13:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga."

For the theory: This means that if we find fish offerings, it's likely a temple to the God Luga because only he got fish offerings. Since they found fish remains in this building, it supports the idea that it’s a temple for him.

2. "Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”."

Against the theory: This means that most temples were built inside the citadel. But the building we found is outside the citadel. So, if temples were almost always inside the citadel, finding one outside is unusual and makes it less likely to be a temple.

wwcd

Joined: 21 Apr 2024

Last visit: 12 May 2025

Posts: 46

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 83

Posts: 46

Kudos: 52

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 13:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

A - Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.
Well, this building was. So this point neither supports nor weakens the theory.

B - Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel".
If this is true, then the building excavated would most likely not be a temple but some other structure.

C - Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.
This is irrelevent.

D - The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.
Also, irrelevent.

E - Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
Strengthens. Considering burnt remains of fish were found on the altar - the structure must be a temple for the God Luga.

For - E ; Against - B

xhym

Joined: 11 Jun 2024

Last visit: 20 Oct 2025

Posts: 65

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: Canada

Products:

Posts: 65

Kudos: 83

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 14:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts' Global
for the GMAT Olympics 2024

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Admissions Consulting, and more

Let's take a look at each option:

Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.

-> This is not relevant to whether or not the building was a temple, it doesn't provide evidence for or against and is just a general claim.

Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.

-> This would provide evidence against the hypothesis since the temple in this case was found in the "low town" area, way from the "citadel", which would be unlikely for a temple.

Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.

-> This does not relate to the hypothesis as it talks about fortification, which is not related to the temple.

The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.

-> This is also irrelevant in determining whether or not the temple belonged to the God Luga so we can ignore this as well.

Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.

-> Since there was evidence found of burnt fish remains, this is provides evidence for the hypothesis as it links the burnt fish to the God Luga, suggesting the building was used as a temple.

Therefore, the answers are:

For: Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
Against: Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.

sohailasif786

Joined: 13 May 2024

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 43

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 43

Kudos: 50

17 Jul 2024, 14:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

An archaeological excavation team working on the site of an ancient Mesopotamian city found a temple structure theorized to have been a temple to the God Luga. The structure was located in the “low town” area, outside the raised and fortified “citadel” area, and built of mud bricks. The building also contained an altar on which were found the burnt remains of fish, most likely offerings to the concerned deity.

Select the proposition that, if true, would provide the strongest evidence For the theory that the building was a temple to the God Luga, and select the proposition that, if true, would provide the strongest evidence Against the hypothesis. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.We are concerned about temple and we are not weakening the statement that the site is of Mesopotamia or not or who constructed the temple.
Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.This is the strongest evidence against the hypothesis, as almost always temples were built in the citadel.
Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.Not relevant.
The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.We are not concerned about who made the temple and how it got made and what material used.
Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.This is the strongest evidence for the hypothesis as fish was exclusive offering to God Luga .

ANS=DB

andreagonzalez2k

Joined: 15 Feb 2021

Last visit: 26 Jul 2025

Posts: 308

Own Kudos:

503

[1]

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 308

Kudos: 503

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 15:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.
Incorrect
The materials used in the construction does not reveal that it is a temple or that it is not. Neither for nor against option.

Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”.
Against option
The text "almost always" makes this the best against option because the building is outside the citadel. And if it is not a temple, it can not be the temple to the God Luga.

Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.
If the building is fortified or not is irrelevant here. Neither for nor against option.

The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.
Incorrect
The use of rare materials does not reveal that it is a temple or that it is not. Neither for nor against option.

Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga.
For option
If the fishes were offerings and these were offered almost exclusively to the God Luga, the building must be the temple to the God Luga.

GuadalupeAntonia

Yale Moderator

Joined: 04 May 2024

Last visit: 07 Apr 2026

Posts: 59

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 22

Location: Mexico

Schools: Haas '27 Yale '27 Stanford '27 MIT '27 Wharton '27

GMAT Focus 1: 665 Q84 V83 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

Schools: Haas '27 Yale '27 Stanford '27 MIT '27 Wharton '27

GMAT Focus 1: 665 Q84 V83 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 59

Kudos: 66

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 16:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Buildings were rarely constructed with mud bricks in ancient Mesopotamia.
NEITHER
this is neutral because maybe temples (a type of building) were constructed with this material and other type of building rarely with mud and bricks. We can not infer this from the text

Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”. Against
The phrase "almost always" gives a strong support to infer that the construction find outside citadel is less likely to be a temple.

Some Mesopotamian buildings outside the “citadel” were also heavily fortified.
NEITHER
it also gives more information about the context on Mesopotamia regarding buildings

The altar was made of stone not commonly found in the region.
NEITHER
this doesn't help to support if the building was a temple to God Luga as in the text doesn't mention anything about the relation of the material of the altar with the God Luga

Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga. For
This helps to support that this building could have been used as a temple to God Luga as offering fish was almost exclusively to him.

pianogirl

Joined: 28 Sep 2022

Last visit: 17 Feb 2026

Posts: 47

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 6

Posts: 47

Kudos: 76

[1]

17 Jul 2024, 17:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

The paragraph explains that the discovered site in the low town area of an ancient Mesopotamian city is said to be a temple to the God Luga that has an altar where burnt fish were found and supposed to be an offering to the god.

The statement Ancient Mesopotamian temples built in cities were almost always built in the “citadel”. weakens the hypothesis because it means the site is probably not a temple since it was found in the lower area and not in the citadel.

The statement Fish were given as offerings almost exclusively to the God Luga. strengthens the hypothesis since the fish found at the altar most probably is an offering to the god and therefore supports the hypothesis of the site being a temple.