It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 00:22

### 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: 893
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
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (02:42) correct 59% (01:43) wrong based on 571 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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

Current Student
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 40
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
3
KUDOS
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: 18 Aug 2014
Posts: 131
Location: Hong Kong
Schools: Mannheim
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2015, 00:18
3
KUDOS
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!
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Posts: 92
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 12:30
2
KUDOS
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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7440
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2015, 23:46
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Intern
Joined: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 43
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
1
KUDOS
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.

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3211
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 08:31
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: 06 Feb 2014
Posts: 43
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: 43
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
Intern
Joined: 27 Dec 2011
Posts: 46
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: 130
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: 7440
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

CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2524
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20
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.
Re: In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to   [#permalink] 05 Dec 2016, 16:14
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
13 #Top150 CR: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name 8 27 May 2017, 10:34
3 PRomotion and Hiring 5 21 Jan 2016, 14:00
Forbidding companies from hiring permanent 6 10 Jan 2012, 23:56
50 For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the 18 02 Jul 2016, 04:34
5 In a typical year 6 16 Jan 2016, 04:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by