GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Nov 2019, 13:49

Close

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 28
In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2004, 03:26
9
41
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:49) correct 47% (02:02) wrong based on 1618 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.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 647
Reviews Badge
Re: Peddler  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2011, 07:24
6
1
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

E is a comparison trap. You can NEVER attack the premise NOR compare the validity of the premise. Unless the evidence states it clearly that one premise is better than the other (which it will not).

Both the documents have to be given equal weightage unless it is stated that one is superior than the other.

jamifahad wrote:
what would you say about E?

If S claimed in an undated document that he had been peddling for 20 years, would you believe him more without an arrest record than with a record arrest?
General Discussion
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1266
  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2006, 22:33
1
3
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.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2185
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2006, 22:42
1
1
1
Clear C. Its more of quant than verbal. :-D :-D

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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 164
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2008, 16:19
3
2
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.
Board of Directors
User avatar
D
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4835
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2016, 11:21
1
The information presented above can have 2 possible scenarios as detailed below -

Attachment:
Untitled.png
Untitled.png [ 6.52 KiB | Viewed 9668 times ]


Hence we can confidently claim only statement (C) that

The undated document was written before 1765


Hence IMHO with answer (C)
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 91
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2016, 07:18
2
1
ajit257 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.
(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.

not convinced by the ans. can someone explain this.


Actually I marked the answer choice E, But after closely reading the stimulus again .

Answer choice C is the best conclusion we can make .

1) The dated doc was written in 1739 .

2) Undated says ES is paddling from last 20 years .

If you combine 1 and 2 . the extreme case is ES started in 1739 and after 20 years in 1759 undated doc is written .

Thus we can easily conclude that undated doc is written before 1765 .
_________________
way to victory .....
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Posts: 143
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2018, 12:12
Hello,

Guys help me to understand. According to C, there is a possibility that the document could have been written in 1763, for instance. Inference questions require that the conclusion be always true. However, we can see that in the case above it would not be true since you all claim that the latest year when the undated document could have been written was 1759.

Please can anybody explain?

Thank you in advance for your kind help.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 28 May 2018
Posts: 71
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2018, 22:33
1
Hi daagh sir, VeritasKarishma
Need help here. I marked E as it was the best of the lot.
Quote:
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.

I neglected C because before 1765 means 1764,1763 for which the argument will not hold true.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5190
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2018, 23:45
Top Contributor
1
I am not sure whether E is correct or not. However, to me, C doesn't seem to be having the logical sanctity. See, he was arrested in 1739 and C says that 26 years later he claimed that he had been peddling for 20 years. Where did he do that peddling after he was arrested? Did he do it inside the prison?
On the other hand, was he referring to the peddling before his arrest? Then he would not have used a past perfect tense saying that he had had been peddling for 20 years. He would have said in a simple past that he peddled for 20 years before he was arrested in 1739. This he could have said just within a few days of his arrest. Why would he have to wait for 26 years?

Secondly, what is the sanctity of the year 1765? For all that, one can even say that the second document was written in 1800, for which also all the answers will hold good.

Therefore, I find it hard to gulp C as the conclusion.

However, the anti-climax is that this is an official question and our intuitions may be faulty.
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top.
"Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9799
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2018, 00:31
3
1
keyV 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.
(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.


Here is what i thought when I read this question and options: I went down the list of options. I noticed that some of them are comparing the two actions - "arrest for peddling in 1739" and "Assertion that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years"

Here were my thoughts - "arrest for peddling" doesn't mean he was actually peddling at that time. Whether he was actually found guilty or was guilty, I don't know.
HIs assertion was that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years. In my mind, I thought that well, he could have said that before his arrest (he stopped but was later arrested because they found proof against him after a year), at the time of his arrest or years after his arrest (perhaps he was imprisoned only for 2 months which was his off period; later he was on again!)

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
This is assuming that he made his assertion at the time of arrest. There is no reason to assume that. Not true.

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
The argument does not imply that anywhere.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
At first, I skipped over it. This is possible but if I assume that at the time of his arrest, he was actually guilty. "Before 1765" means just that - "sometime before 1765". So if he makes this assertion in 1750, it is still before 1765. Assuming he was peddling in 1739, he could have made this assertion at any time before 1739, during 1739 or 20 years after 1739 i.e. in 1759. All possible years in which he could have made his assertion would be before 1765. It is the same as saying that the document was written before 1900 or before 2005 etc.

So, I went to the next option keeping this in mind but not fully convinced with it.

(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
As we discussed before, there is no reason to assume "before", "during" or "after".

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.
Not true. We cannot say which is better evidence. Perhaps his own assertion should be considered better. It is highly unlikely that he would want to malign his own reputation. But then, perhaps the official arrest with date is better. We cannot say. How do we define what is better evidence? This option is asking you to take a call - you cannot do that. You have to look for a conclusion of the argument only.

This leaves us with (C) only. Best of the lot.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 565
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2019, 08:29
keyV 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. - Wrong: ES could have been caught before 1739.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling. - Wrong: No info given regarding the # of arrests.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765. - Correct: If ES was caught before 1739 or in 1739, there is no way that the doc was written after 1765 since it mentions 20 years. 1739 + 20 < 1796.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document. - Wrong: No order given.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document. - Wrong: No such comparison given.
_________________
Most Comprehensive Article on How to Score a 700+ on the GMAT (NEW)
Verb Tenses Simplified


If you found my post useful, KUDOS are much appreciated. Giving Kudos is a great way to thank and motivate contributors, without costing you anything.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Dec 2018
Posts: 3
In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Mar 2019, 09:10
daagh wrote:
I am not sure whether E is correct or not. However, to me, C doesn't seem to be having the logical sanctity. See, he was arrested in 1739 and C says that 26 years later he claimed that he had been peddling for 20 years. Where did he do that peddling after he was arrested? Did he do it inside the prison?
On the other hand, was he referring to the peddling before his arrest? Then he would not have used a past perfect tense saying that he had had been peddling for 20 years. He would have said in a simple past that he peddled for 20 years before he was arrested in 1739. This he could have said just within a few days of his arrest. Why would he have to wait for 26 years?

Secondly, what is the sanctity of the year 1765? For all that, one can even say that the second document was written in 1800, for which also all the answers will hold good.

Therefore, I find it hard to gulp C as the conclusion.

However, the anti-climax is that this is an official question and our intuitions may be faulty.


The question stated "...asserting that he has been peddling...", not had been peddling as you mentioned. It seems no one mentioned that distinction and if I had paid closer attention to the prompt I wouldn't have chosen the wrong answer E.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Aug 2017
Posts: 81
In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2019, 03:27
keyV 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.
(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.


Here is how i solved it

A : No facts to state that hence wrong
B : We dont know weather he was arrested once or multiple times hence wrong
C : Here we know that he was arrested on May 3, 1739 ( Fact ) . Which basically confirms that he was definately involved in the activity. So there are 2 scenarios assuming he wrote this statement much before 1739 when he was arrested still means that (C) The undated document was written before 1765. Other extreme is assume he wrote this letter 20 years after he was involved in the activity and we know for a fact that he was involved in 1739 +20 = 1759 which means C still hold good. This is the best option and correct .
(D) Wrong / Cant say : No Facts to prove (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. Wrong : We cant judge which is a better source of evidence
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1291
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2019, 14:28
A - this is false, he may have started peddling +20 years also
B - we only know he was arrested for peddling, not repeatedly peddling
C - True. 1739 was when he was arrested, so he must have been arrested +/- 20 years of this date as he states that he had been riding his bike on and off for 20 years.
D - We can't verify this fact.
E - Not sure how an arrest record would be better than a personal statement, but in either case what exactly does 'better' mean?
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if I have helped you
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2019
Posts: 7
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2019, 14:33
I think it's C as he was arrested on May 3, 1739 . He was definitely involved in the activity
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In the course of her researches, a historian recently found   [#permalink] 22 Oct 2019, 14:33
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