It is currently 18 Mar 2018, 20:20

### 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 found

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 496

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2006, 14:02
I got C and C as well.

1) C - because it is the only definite answer - he was arrested in 1739 so + 20 years would be 1759.

Although looking back on it now E looks better because in C he could have taken time off between 39 and 65.

2) C seems like the obvious choice.
Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 783

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2006, 14:30
Had selected E and C, but for the first one C is correct, as explained by OasisNYK...
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1719

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2006, 04:16
C for both.

1) The fact remains that he was arrested in 1739. The second document just says that he was peddling for 20 years. It can be > 1739 or <1739
Both the cases are covered by C

2) Even the most adept forgers cannot duplicate all of the characteristics the program analyzes.
Hence C
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 253
In the course of her researches, a historian recently found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 09:22
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 Schnitzlerâ€™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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 328
Re: CR - Erich Schnitzler [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 12:58
iced_tea wrote:
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 Schnitzlerâ€™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.

It is possible that started peddling in 1710 and got arrested in 1719.

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.

Not at all supported by argument.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765.

This makes sense.. In worst case, Schnitzler got arrested first year he started peddling. So mentions after 20 years which 1739 that he has been peddling for 20 years.. So the undated document was written before 1765.

(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.

Not supported.

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1719

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 22:33
Clear winner C.

Covers both the following possiblities.

1) The document was written before he was arrested.
2) The document was writtedn after his arrest.
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2873
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 22:42
Clear C. Its more of quant than verbal.

Max year when the undated was written = 1739 + 20 = 1759
Min year when the undated was written = 1739 -20 = 1719
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: India

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2006, 23:14
Yes, only C can be concluded for sure as mentioned above.
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 235
Location: Italy
Re: CR - Erich Schnitzler [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 11:12
we need to find the phrase that address to both conclusion....

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 Schnitzlerâ€™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. not mentioned in any premise cannot be even assumed

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling. the stimulus rely on the fact that he has been peddling but there is no mention about other arrests...

(C) The undated document was written before 1765. arrested in 1939 + pedling for 20 years it is....

(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document. not mentioned

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document. ..then not mentioned in the stimulus out
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 735

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2006, 01:20
C seems the only thing clearly correct
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 241
In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 06:14
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1329
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 06:28
ssandeepan wrote:
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. -> this is wrong since he has been peddling for of and on for 20 years hence if he were to begin peddling in 1719 then he would have got arrested in 1739 exaclty 20 years
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling. -> this is wrong since he got arrested for only once
(C) The undated document was written before 1765. -> this is illogical and irrelevant
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document. -> THIS IS IMO answer since second premise says that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years hence till now he is not arrested and is still peddling according to this second record
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document. -> this is not a correct conclution since author mentions about the time when the document is written

_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 923
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2008, 14:58
Premise1: H found 2 documents about E.
Premise2: 1st document, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of E arrest for peddling without a license.
Premise3: 2nd document, undated, is a statement by E asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
May be E got started first and that pushed him for further peddling. So no proof for this one.

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
There is only 1 instance of documented arrest so cannot be concluded about other arrest.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
E's age is not given. E might have written the undated document anytime. So no proof that he wrote it before 1765.

(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
Again no proof for this one.

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.
This one is quite plausible. If I say I am a great soccer player, nobody might belive it or few might belive, however, it same thing is told by some authoritative sports magazine, then many people will beleive it. In that the second is more authoritative source.

IMO E.
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 241
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2008, 16:19
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
OA is C .

As you have mentioned :
Premise1: H found 2 documents about E.
Premise2: 1st document, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of E arrest for peddling without a license.
Premise3: 2nd document, undated, is a statement by E asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

so , if 1739 was the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling, the the second document would be from 1759, which is before 1765. And if 1739 was not the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling , then definately the the second document would be before 1759.
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 282
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2008, 17:30
how about 1959 - 1964 ; makes C wrong

E is obv not very strong but here other options are quite weak
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 185
Schools: MIT / INSEAD / IIM - ABC
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2008, 02:38
ssandeepan wrote:
OA is C .

As you have mentioned :
Premise1: H found 2 documents about E.
Premise2: 1st document, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of E arrest for peddling without a license.
Premise3: 2nd document, undated, is a statement by E asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

so , if 1739 was the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling, the the second document would be from 1759, which is before 1765. And if 1739 was not the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling , then definately the the second document would be before 1759.

Just browing thru the forum...this is a real good one!
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1378
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2008, 12:59
stallone wrote:
how about 1959 - 1964 ; makes C wrong

E is obv not very strong but here other options are quite weak

I initially picked C, but ruled it out because it would be more than 20 years if the undated document is from 1759-1764. The conclusion does not follow. Does it? Where is this Q from?

E, IMO does not offer any more strength because both documents are saying that he was peddling. the only thing different was he did not have license and arrested. peddling is not questioned. So one doc does not support peddling strongly over the other.

I looked at D but the undated document can clearly be written after the arrest document.

Example: arrest in 1739 and undated document in 1740 about his peddling from 1720 to 1740
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 92
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2008, 18:35
ssandeepan wrote:
OA is C .

As you have mentioned :
Premise1: H found 2 documents about E.
Premise2: 1st document, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of E arrest for peddling without a license.
Premise3: 2nd document, undated, is a statement by E asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

so , if 1739 was the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling, the the second document would be from 1759, which is before 1765. And if 1739 was not the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling , then definately the the second document would be before 1759.

What if the undated confession is written 30 years after he was arrested ?
_________________

Kick GMAT ass

Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 509
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2008, 20:38
E looks good to me.....but OE is also making sense.....any idea what would be the difficulty level of this CR?
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 185
Schools: MIT / INSEAD / IIM - ABC
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2008, 20:46
E looks good to me.....but OE is also making sense.....any idea what would be the difficulty level of this CR?

My two cents:

This is a OG 10E problem, you will also find this in retired GMAT Tests. Diffcultywise, appears in the end, so 700+mark.

I hope this will help!
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume   [#permalink] 05 Nov 2008, 20:46

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 79 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In the course of her researches, a historian recently found

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.