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

 It is currently 23 Jun 2018, 11:02

### 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 feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 829
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2013, 22:33
3
16
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (01:30) correct 60% (01:43) wrong based on 922 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
b)In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
c)Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
e)Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3421
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 08:31
1
The argument states

Nobles hired knights to invade new lands. Now: knights trained regardless the land to invade or defend, no matter what.

they trained and then..........who cares. did something imparted to them (no regards of the location where they fought) . basically the argument says this.

But in my opinion E weaken the argument. A is an assumption.

If you find it, post the OE and will see

regards
_________________
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.49
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2013, 05:42
4
The conclusion of the stimulus says that "Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.:
The option A says that only the nobles had the information regarding whether they are going to attack or defend. As the Knights had no idea, they can't decide which techniques need to be practiced. There is no way we can know that the knights regarded the location as insignificant if A is true. Hence, A seriously weakens the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Posts: 84
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 12:30
2
The conclusion basically is, knights were hired by nobles to prepare for an impending battle. If the conclusion is to be attacked or weakened, all that needs to be done is, prove that the knights will be unable to prepare for the battle or take relevant decisions likewise.

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
If the knights have no clue/knowledge of the land or other such details, then they actually fail to take battle related decisions. Hence, its not point having knights around. Therefore, A.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Doesn't address the conclusion at all. Wrong
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
The decision taking capabilities of the knights are at question, not their warrior/fighting skills. Although it does weaken a premise, but the conclusion needs to be attacked, not the premise.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
The knights's decisions matter, not the nobles'.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
This actually supports the argument in a way because, no matter what, the knights are still successful in taking decisions. We need to weaken by confirming that knights are unable in taking decisions.

PLease do correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
Intern
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 42
Location: United States
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2015, 18:02
This one's from Veritas and here's the official explanation. Can someone please explain why A is correct. I still don't see how A is weakening the conclusion.

Choice A, the correct answer, provides evidence that knights could not determine in advance whether a battle would involve an invasion of land or a defense of land. Thus, even if knights did regard the location of land as relevant to success, they might have been unable to apply this criterion. Therefore, choice A weakens the conclusion. Choice B fails to establish that the location of the battle was important, that knights had any reason to see the location as relevant, or that they lacked information to properly determine the relevance of the location. Neither choice C nor choice D affects the conclusion-choice C does not give enough information to undermine the conclusion, and choice D is irrelevant to the knights' view. That another factor was seen by knights as relevant to success is irrelevant to the conclusion, thus choice E is incorrect.

My take:
Logical structure:
Premise 1: Nobles led Knights to either defend or invade..
Premise 2: Knights trained for success using strategies that were not dependent on offensive or defensive position.
Conclusion: Knights didn't regard location as relevant to success

Now if A is correct, it is probably trying to weaken/break the assumption that links Premise 1 to Conclusion. However, premise 1 - doesn't state that knights had to know the type of battle - whether they would be invading or defending - in order for conclusion to hold true - knights didn't regard location as relevant to success. Even if knights have no knowledge of type of battle (invasion/defense) they can still regard location (offensive/defensive position) as irrelevant. ??

Please can some experts help clarify. Thanks.

TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself
Intern
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 42
Location: United States
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2015, 18:03
This one's from Veritas and here's the official explanation. Can someone please explain why A is correct. I still don't see how A is weakening the conclusion.

Choice A, the correct answer, provides evidence that knights could not determine in advance whether a battle would involve an invasion of land or a defense of land. Thus, even if knights did regard the location of land as relevant to success, they might have been unable to apply this criterion. Therefore, choice A weakens the conclusion. Choice B fails to establish that the location of the battle was important, that knights had any reason to see the location as relevant, or that they lacked information to properly determine the relevance of the location. Neither choice C nor choice D affects the conclusion-choice C does not give enough information to undermine the conclusion, and choice D is irrelevant to the knights' view. That another factor was seen by knights as relevant to success is irrelevant to the conclusion, thus choice E is incorrect.

My take:
Logical structure:
Premise 1: Nobles led Knights to either defend or invade..
Premise 2: Knights trained for success using strategies that were not dependent on offensive or defensive position.
Conclusion: Knights didn't regard location as relevant to success

Now if A is correct, it is probably trying to weaken/break the assumption that links Premise 1 to Conclusion. However, premise 1 - doesn't state that knights had to know the type of battle - whether they would be invading or defending - in order for conclusion to hold true - knights didn't regard location as relevant to success. Even if knights have no knowledge of type of battle (invasion/defense) they can still regard location (offensive/defensive position) as irrelevant. ??

Please can some experts help clarify. Thanks.

TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2015, 23:46
2
2
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

Argument:
Nobles hired knights for battle.
Nobles led knights either in invading or defending.
Knights planned strategies which did not depend on offensive or defensive position.

Conclusion: Knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position so we are concluding that the knights did not consider location important. The point is that we cannot conclude that. Perhaps they did not know the location and hence did not consider it. Perhaps they did think that location was important to strategy but since they did not know the location, they couldn't plan their strategy based on that.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the position and hence it makes sense that they did not consider it in their strategy. So it is not necessary that they did not consider position important. So it weakens our conclusion.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2014
Posts: 124
Location: Hong Kong
Schools: Mannheim
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2015, 00:18
3
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success. , BECAUSE In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position.

Answer Choice A weakens this conclusion because it states that knights did not even know if they would be fighting offensive or defensive!
Intern
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 42
Location: United States
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2015, 08:46
2
Thank you, Karishma. Much appreciated. Please can you validate my interpretation below. It is a cause-effect relationship, right?

"The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position (invading/defending) => so we are concluding that => the knights did not consider location important."

Since X So Y (Cause and effect relation?)

But in A we are showing that there's an alternate reason to the Effect, and hence we cast doubt/break the cause-effect relationship.

Now we are implying that:
Since Z so Y.
Here Z is "knights had no knowledge if they will be invading or defending.

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

Argument:
Nobles hired knights for battle.
Nobles led knights either in invading or defending.
Knights planned strategies which did not depend on offensive or defensive position.

Conclusion: Knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position so we are concluding that the knights did not consider location important. The point is that we cannot conclude that. Perhaps they did not know the location and hence did not consider it. Perhaps they did think that location was important to strategy but since they did not know the location, they couldn't plan their strategy based on that.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the position and hence it makes sense that they did not consider it in their strategy. So it is not necessary that they did not consider position important. So it weakens our conclusion.

Intern
Joined: 27 Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V27
GMAT 2: 680 Q46 V38
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.5
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2016, 08:48
I got this incredibly hard question in my last Veritas CAT. What I don't understand in the OA is the link between "invading or defending land" and the "location of battle" in the conclusion. By choosing letter A I have to assume that invading or defending a land has something to do with the location of the battle. Can someone provide an official gmat question that uses this kind of construction?
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 114
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V27
GPA: 1.9
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2016, 09:20
carcass wrote:
The argument states

Nobles hired knights to invade new lands. Now: knights trained regardless the land to invade or defend, no matter what.

they trained and then..........who cares. did something imparted to them (no regards of the location where they fought) . basically the argument says this.

But in my opinion E weaken the argument. A is an assumption.

If you find it, post the OE and will see

regards

I think E strengthen the concl.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2016, 20:37
Hugoba wrote:
I got this incredibly hard question in my last Veritas CAT. What I don't understand in the OA is the link between "invading or defending land" and the "location of battle" in the conclusion. By choosing letter A I have to assume that invading or defending a land has something to do with the location of the battle. Can someone provide an official gmat question that uses this kind of construction?

But there is a connection between invading/defending and location by definition. When you invade, you go to other regions to invade. When you defend, you defend home. Say, your homeland is surrounded by mountains, your strategy might depend on that. If you are going to invade a city along a river, your strategy might be different. So location has everything to do with whether one is defending or invading.
Once you understand the question, it doesn't seem hard at all. Check out my post above for an explanation: in-the-feudal-system-nobles-typically-hired-knights-to-146114.html#p1484098
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2730
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2016, 16:14
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
b)In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
c)Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
e)Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

it is a clear that A is the answer. Knights need not know what nobles are planning to do. They are paid to fight. Where they fight - doesn't matter.
Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2017
Posts: 93
GMAT 1: 700 Q51 V34
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2017, 01:03

I could not reach the answer on first look. I had to use POE to determine the answer.

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land. First thought - Since even without knowledge the knights are preparing for success, this knowledge might have no relevance to knight.

Second read- If they did not have the knowledge- then I cannot say that they did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success. The actual reason for them not using the knowledge of the position was not the relevance of the knowledge but lack of knowledge. They might use this knowledge in there advantage if they knew about the position.

b)In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.- this states that the knights new about the location/position of the after the battle was over, not relevant.

c)Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles. There success rate has no relevance- had it been that without the knowledge of position the knights are only as successful as nobles are - then this would have been the ans.

d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.- Nobles decision making has no relevance.

e)Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment. - Strengthen the conlusion. If knight's strategy were dependent on the equipment provided, then the position they fight does not matter. Situation- If the nobles are able to provide only defense related equipment, but knights are fighting from offensive side
Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2017
Posts: 43
Location: India
Schools: ISB '20, NUS '20
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.9
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2017, 05:10
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
b)In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
c)Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
e)Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.

Source:Veritas Prep
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2016
Posts: 13
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2017, 00:50
can you please explain how option A is weakening the conclusion. in my view it is strengthening the conclusion.

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

Argument:
Nobles hired knights for battle.
Nobles led knights either in invading or defending.
Knights planned strategies which did not depend on offensive or defensive position.

Conclusion: Knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position so we are concluding that the knights did not consider location important. The point is that we cannot conclude that. Perhaps they did not know the location and hence did not consider it. Perhaps they did think that location was important to strategy but since they did not know the location, they couldn't plan their strategy based on that.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the position and hence it makes sense that they did not consider it in their strategy. So it is not necessary that they did not consider position important. So it weakens our conclusion.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2017, 08:16
4SL wrote:
can you please explain how option A is weakening the conclusion. in my view it is strengthening the conclusion.

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

Argument:
Nobles hired knights for battle.
Nobles led knights either in invading or defending.
Knights planned strategies which did not depend on offensive or defensive position.

Conclusion: Knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

The argument tells us that knights strategies did not depend on position so we are concluding that the knights did not consider location important. The point is that we cannot conclude that. Perhaps they did not know the location and hence did not consider it. Perhaps they did think that location was important to strategy but since they did not know the location, they couldn't plan their strategy based on that.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the position and hence it makes sense that they did not consider it in their strategy. So it is not necessary that they did not consider position important. So it weakens our conclusion.

Since we see that the knights planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position, we conclude that knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

We have to weaken it. So we have to present some information which makes us doubt the conclusion.

(A) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
This tells you that knights had no idea about the location. The point is that if they did not whether they will be fighting offensive or defensive, they cannot plan for it. That might be the reason they did not and it may not be that they think location is not important. Hence it makes us doubt our conclusion.

If you are still unsure, explain why you think it strengthens.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2017, 04:58
TGC wrote:
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
b)In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
c)Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
e)Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Source:veri Prep

Can someone plz explain this , totally confused by the stimulus itself

Responding to a pm:
Quote:
For this particular question - I thought option D because if nobles made the decision (since premise says nobles leads the knights) and hence the knights have no reason to worry about the battle location rather just fight the opposition to success. But not necessarily mean the knights were not concerned about the battle location. Please explain.

We need to weaken - "Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success"

d) Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
This option tells us that nobles made the decision about the location of battle based on some factor. It doesn't tell us that they don't tell knights about the location. Knights plan their strategies irrespective of whether they are invading or defending - it could very well be that they know the location but they consider that location is not important. We don't know.

Option (A) clearly says that knights don't KNOW the location. So this certainly makes us doubt the conclusion that they do not consider location important based on the premise that they plan their strategies irrespective of whether they are invading or defending. If they don't KNOW, they CANNOT plan based on whether they are invading or defending.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 407
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2017, 11:51
Hey VeritasPrepKarishma

Here's my thought process

- Knights trained based on the equipments they were given by nobles
- Hence they trained based on the equipment they were given and hence didn't ignore the land on purpose because they don't know

Can you share your thoughts here? Thanks
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 430
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2017, 23:35
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Conclusion:- Knights didn't think that location of battle can be relavant to success.
Premise :- Knights planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position.

This conclusion can be weakened if it can be proven that selecting location of battle is not their responsibility. What they think is if superseded by noble who appointed them, they can't do anything about it. But still they consider it as AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT BUT THEY CAN NOT ACT ON IT.
(Think it as your situation at work place).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

a) In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.

Only A is aligned with Pre-thinking.
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to   [#permalink] 11 Sep 2017, 23:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by