Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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 2107:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Are you curious about the dynamic field of Product Management and how it can shape your career trajectory? Join Carnegie Mellon for an insightful conversation about the MS in Product Management (MSPM) ...- May 20
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Master the RC on GMAT Club's with Manhattan Prep. Join the Live! 
May 2511:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
In this webinar, Rajat Sadana, GMAT Club’s #1 rated expert will help you create a personalized study plan so that each one of you can visualize your journey to a top GMAT Focus Score.
May 2501:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
Think a 100% GMAT Focus Verbal score is out of your reach? TTP will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.- May 26
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
In this podcast, we talk to Lindsay Loyd, Executive Director, of MBA Admissions at NYU Stern, Hunter Brickey, NYU Stern alumnus and Daisy Cheng, a current student at NYU Stern, and more. 
May 2601:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
The Target Test Prep team is excited to announce multiple live online classes for GMAT Focus test-takers in May. Our 40-hour LiveTeach program will take your GMAT Focus score to the next level.- Jun 11
05:30 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight fair, the biggest MBA fair of the year. You will have a chance to hear Admissions directors from almost every Top 20 program speak, network with peers, and more.
Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons
[#permalink]
09 Apr 2024, 21:28
09 Apr 2024, 21:28
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
35% (01:57) correct
65%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 181
sessions
Which of the following most logically completes the historian’s argument below?
Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons inherit, had produced in Europe by the time of the Crusades a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home. For these men, joining a Crusade to the rich lands of the East would have seemed their only opportunity to acquire a fortune.
Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded, though there is little direct evidence on this point, that.
A. younger sons of aristocratic families were strongly represented among those who joined the Crusades
B. for most participants, economic motives for joining a Crusade outweighed all other motives
C. very few firstborn sons participated in the Crusades out of economic motives
D. no one with economic resources or prospects at home would have joined a Crusade
E. many younger sons who would otherwise never have had independent fortunes succeeded in acquiring such fortunes as a result of their participation in the Crusades
Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons inherit, had produced in Europe by the time of the Crusades a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home. For these men, joining a Crusade to the rich lands of the East would have seemed their only opportunity to acquire a fortune.
Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded, though there is little direct evidence on this point, that.
A. younger sons of aristocratic families were strongly represented among those who joined the Crusades
B. for most participants, economic motives for joining a Crusade outweighed all other motives
C. very few firstborn sons participated in the Crusades out of economic motives
D. no one with economic resources or prospects at home would have joined a Crusade
E. many younger sons who would otherwise never have had independent fortunes succeeded in acquiring such fortunes as a result of their participation in the Crusades
Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 100
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons
[#permalink]
12 Apr 2024, 12:33
12 Apr 2024, 12:33
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
When a GMAT question asks you for the "best supported" answer choice, you have to find a choice that you can PROVE from the given statements. You'll arrive at this choice by combining two or more statements from the passage with as much logical certainty as possible.
(As an example of what I mean by "combining statements", if a passage were to say "My car fits in parking spot number 12" and "My Wife's car does not fit in parking spot number 12", we could combine these statements to conclude "My Wife's car is bigger than mine in at least one dimension".)
This problem has less rigorous logic than its counterparts on the official exam, and is problematic in that you have to attribute factual accuracy to a statement about what "would have seemed" true in order to arrive at the correct answer——but at least it follows the basic contours of the official problems, by giving just only one answer choice that comes anywhere close to being a logical conclusion of the combination of two or more given statements.
.
As you read through the passage, you should look for pairs of statements with an obvious connection that will let you combine them (like the parking spot that's mentioned in both of the statements above).
The two bold statements here have a clear relationship:
The underlined bold sentence says that the oldest son in a family with generational wealth would inherit ALL of that wealth——meaning that the family's other sons (if there were any) would get nothing.
Those non-firstborn sons, who were barred from receiving an inheritance, were the "large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home".
.
We can make a further connection by noting that these non-firstborn sons (who were denied an inheritance) are "these men" in the following sentence:
This is where the current problem falls short of a GMAT-worthy degree of logical rigor: This statement——about what "would have seemed" necessary——does not literally tell us that any of those younger sons actually DID take this option and go join Crusades in faraway lands, but we have to assume that significant numbers of them did so.
The GMAT will not do this; i.e., on "prove an answer" problems, you will never have to infer a greater degree of certainty/probability than the words actually say.
But anyways... With that connection made, we have all the building blocks that we can assemble to get choice A as a consequence.
(As an example of what I mean by "combining statements", if a passage were to say "My car fits in parking spot number 12" and "My Wife's car does not fit in parking spot number 12", we could combine these statements to conclude "My Wife's car is bigger than mine in at least one dimension".)
This problem has less rigorous logic than its counterparts on the official exam, and is problematic in that you have to attribute factual accuracy to a statement about what "would have seemed" true in order to arrive at the correct answer——but at least it follows the basic contours of the official problems, by giving just only one answer choice that comes anywhere close to being a logical conclusion of the combination of two or more given statements.
.
As you read through the passage, you should look for pairs of statements with an obvious connection that will let you combine them (like the parking spot that's mentioned in both of the statements above).
The two bold statements here have a clear relationship:
Quote:
The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons inherit, had produced in Europe by the time of the Crusades a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home.
The underlined bold sentence says that the oldest son in a family with generational wealth would inherit ALL of that wealth——meaning that the family's other sons (if there were any) would get nothing.
Those non-firstborn sons, who were barred from receiving an inheritance, were the "large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home".
.
We can make a further connection by noting that these non-firstborn sons (who were denied an inheritance) are "these men" in the following sentence:
Quote:
For these men, joining a Crusade to the rich lands of the East would have seemed their only opportunity to acquire a fortune.
This is where the current problem falls short of a GMAT-worthy degree of logical rigor: This statement——about what "would have seemed" necessary——does not literally tell us that any of those younger sons actually DID take this option and go join Crusades in faraway lands, but we have to assume that significant numbers of them did so.
The GMAT will not do this; i.e., on "prove an answer" problems, you will never have to infer a greater degree of certainty/probability than the words actually say.
But anyways... With that connection made, we have all the building blocks that we can assemble to get choice A as a consequence.
General Discussion
Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 100
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons
[#permalink]
12 Apr 2024, 12:49
12 Apr 2024, 12:49
4
Kudos
Expert Reply
You can also approach this problem with process-of-elimination. On the official GMAT, the WRONG answers to "prove a choice" problems will either be entirely unsupported (= irrelevant; neither supported nor refuted by anything in the passage) or else will actually contradict the passage.
.
The passage is limited to a discussion of the economic motives of second- or later-born sons of wealthy aristocrats. There is definitely nothing in the passage to make us think that this group would have comprised "most participants" in the Crusades, so this choice is unsupported.
Another manifestation of "no trick questions" on the official GMAT is that the correct answers will never contravene basic real-world common sense.
This principle is a good reason to get rid of choice B, because the aristocracy has always been a tiny minority out of every population that has ever had aristocrats——so there's just no feasible way that the group mentioned here, comprising only a fraction of the sons of the already-tiny aristocratic classes, could possibly have made up a majority of Crusaders (Christian soldiers).
.
Contradicts the passage. Firstborn sons were the ones whose financial security was assured by birthright to their parents' wealth——i.e., the ones who didn't have to join expeditionary armies in order to eke out a livelihood.
.
Unsupported. The passage talks about how SOME young men became Crusaders because they DIDN'T have any way to make a living at home, but says nothing about whether men with the luxury of free choice did or didn't join for other reasons, even though they didn't HAVE to.
.
Unsupported. There is nothing to suggest that anyone became rich as a rank-and-file soldier in the Crusades——and, moreover, it's an egregious violation of basic common sense to suggest that any of them would have.
.
Quote:
B. for most participants, economic motives for joining a Crusade outweighed all other motives
The passage is limited to a discussion of the economic motives of second- or later-born sons of wealthy aristocrats. There is definitely nothing in the passage to make us think that this group would have comprised "most participants" in the Crusades, so this choice is unsupported.
Another manifestation of "no trick questions" on the official GMAT is that the correct answers will never contravene basic real-world common sense.
This principle is a good reason to get rid of choice B, because the aristocracy has always been a tiny minority out of every population that has ever had aristocrats——so there's just no feasible way that the group mentioned here, comprising only a fraction of the sons of the already-tiny aristocratic classes, could possibly have made up a majority of Crusaders (Christian soldiers).
.
Quote:
C. very few firstborn sons participated in the Crusades out of economic motives
Contradicts the passage. Firstborn sons were the ones whose financial security was assured by birthright to their parents' wealth——i.e., the ones who didn't have to join expeditionary armies in order to eke out a livelihood.
.
Quote:
D. no one with economic resources or prospects at home would have joined a Crusade
Unsupported. The passage talks about how SOME young men became Crusaders because they DIDN'T have any way to make a living at home, but says nothing about whether men with the luxury of free choice did or didn't join for other reasons, even though they didn't HAVE to.
.
Quote:
E. many younger sons who would otherwise never have had independent fortunes succeeded in acquiring such fortunes as a result of their participation in the Crusades
Unsupported. There is nothing to suggest that anyone became rich as a rank-and-file soldier in the Crusades——and, moreover, it's an egregious violation of basic common sense to suggest that any of them would have.
