It is currently 22 Oct 2017, 00:13

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In the course of her researches, a historian recently

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 319

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: dallas , tx
In the course of her researches, a historian recently  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2004, 10:27
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In the course of her researches, a historian recently
found two documents mentioning the same person,
Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a
record of Schnitzler’s arrest for peddling without a
license. The second, undated, is a statement by
Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off
and on for 20 years.

The facts above best support which of the following
conclusions?
(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated
document.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that
Schnitzler peddled than does the undated
document.
_________________

shubhangi

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

23 May 2004, 15:11
This is a old one. Which answer did you choose?

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 319

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: dallas , tx

### Show Tags

23 May 2004, 15:43
yes i knwo this one is old..but i could not find the proper answer ...the OA is C ..i guess.. but i dont understand why is it C? if someone could explain.. that 'd be great
_________________

shubhangi

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

23 May 2004, 17:49
A) this cannot be concluded for sure because he might have been caught after 20 years of peddling
B) This cannot be concluded for sure because there is only one record of arrest
D) What is he was caught the second time on May 3 1739. First time he might have been just warned.
E) May be and May not be depends on who is looking at it.

C) is correct because if you add 20 years to 1739 you will get 1759 < 1765

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 319

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: dallas , tx

### Show Tags

23 May 2004, 20:05
thanks anand.. that was clear enough
_________________

shubhangi

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

23 May 2004, 20:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by