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. Correct Answer: A 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.

Last visit was: 02 May 2026, 01:04

It is currently 02 May 2026, 01:04

Toolkit

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for

1 2

EpilepticLearner

Joined: 24 Feb 2019

Last visit: 03 Feb 2020

Posts: 43

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 73

Posts: 43

Kudos: 25

20 Jul 2019, 08:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

I chose E because the noble's ability to provide equipment does, in fact, depend on the location of the battle. So location is important to the knight for him to infer on the type of equipment he'll have access to...

warrior1991

Joined: 03 Mar 2017

Last visit: 03 Feb 2022

Posts: 540

Own Kudos:

438

Given Kudos: 596

Location: India

Concentration: Operations, Technology

Products:

Posts: 540

Kudos: 438

21 Jul 2019, 05:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

generis VeritasKarishma

Can you validate my reasoning.

Is this a cause and effect relationship question??

My reasoning:--

Since knights planned their strategies without taking into consideration the offensive or defensive position, for them the location was not important in order to achieve success.

Now option A

This says that knights had no knowledge about whether they will invade or defend land.

If they had no knowledge, how could they neglect the consideration above??

And of that is the case, the conclusion is weakened.

Mavisdu1017

Joined: 10 Aug 2021

Last visit: 04 Jan 2023

Posts: 341

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 226

Posts: 341

Kudos: 49

24 Dec 2021, 09:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

TGC

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.

Answer (A)

Hey Karishma, I understand why A is right now as per your explanation, and do you mind to elaborate why C is wrong as I went with C?
Choice C seems to say offensive position is more likely to win for knights, so weakens the conclusion "knights consider battle position not important"
Thx in advance

VerbalBot

Non-Human User

Joined: 01 Oct 2013

Last visit: 04 Jan 2021

Posts: 19,433

Own Kudos:

1,010

Posts: 19,433

Kudos: 1,010

03 Dec 2025, 20:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

1 2

Moderators:

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

7391 posts

AbhishekP220108

513 posts

bhanu29

363 posts