Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the

Question

Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?

(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century

(B) Whether travel between western Mexico and Ecuador in the seventh century would have been primarily by land or by sea

(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico.

(D) Whether metal tools were used in the seventh-century settlements in western Mexico

(E) Whether any of the techniques used in the manufacture of the metal rings found in western Mexico are still practiced among artisans in Ecuador today

ID: 100775
OG2017 Diagnostic V69 P34

Metal Rings

Step 1: Identify the Question

The words useful to establish in order to evaluate in the question stem indicate that this is an  Evaluate the Argument  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Metal rings: 7c W. Mex same tech as Ec 7c + b4

Tech complex; prob not dev ind

Hyp: E dev first, M learn

Abbreviate heavily. You’ll only be on this problem for a couple of minutes; your short-term memory can retain the idea that “prob not dev ind” means “probably not developed independently.”

The archaeologists mentioned in the argument hypothesize that the Es developed this technology first because the technique was used in E earlier than the period in which the recently-found metal rings were made in M.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Evaluate questions, the goal is to find an answer choice that could “swing” the argument in two directions, either strengthening the argument or weakening it. A choice that can either strengthen or weaken the argument gives you a good way to evaluate whether the argument is valid.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT . If metal objects were traded from E to M in the relevant timeframe, then it is at least somewhat more likely that the Es also passed along information regarding how to manufacture these objects. That would strengthen the argument. On the other hand, if such objects were not traded, then it is somewhat less likely that the Es taught the Ms how to manufacture the metal—if they weren’t trading at all, or if the Ms didn’t find the metal rings interesting enough to trade for, then it’s less likely that the Es would have an opportunity to teach the Ms how to make these rings. This would weaken the argument. Since this choice could either strengthen or weaken, it is correct.

(B) How people from the two cultures may have traveled does not impact whether the Es might have taught the Ms this particular technique. What matters is that they did interact with one another in some way, not by what method they traveled.

(C) The Ms could have learned the techniques from Es traveling to M. The Ms also could have learned the techniques by traveling to E. Either way, this choice does not provide additional information to help determine whether the initial hypothesis (that Es taught Ms this process) is valid.

(D) The argument doesn’t depend upon whether the metal rings were created from metal tools or tools made of other materials. Nor does it specify whether the metal rings were intended as tools or were for some other purpose, such as jewelry. The question of tools is irrelevant to whether the Es taught the Ms the technique in question.

(E) The argument does not hinge upon the future use of the techniques in question. It claims only that the Es taught the Ms these techniques at some point in or prior to the seventh century.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Since we are trying to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis, let's start by identifying that hypothesis: "the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts."

Great, now let's break down the reasoning that supports that hypothesis:

Metal rings were recently found in the ruins of 7th-century settlements in the western part of Mexico. 
 Those rings were made using the same techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans  before  and during the 7th century. So it is likely (though not certain) that the Ecuadorians were using those techniques before the people in western Mexico. 
 The techniques used to make the rings are pretty complex, so it's unlikely that the techniques were developed independently in each location. If we had been talking about some simple process, it would be possible that each civilization developed the process on their own. But in this case, it is more likely that only ONE of the two cultures developed the techniques. 
 The people of western Mexico were in cultural contact with the people of Ecuador. Therefore, it is  possible  that the groups learned from one another.

According to the archaeologists, this evidence suggests that the Mexican artisans learned how to make the rings from the Ecuadorian artisans. What would be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?

We know that it is unlikely that both groups developed the techniques for making the rings independently. As a result, the archaeologists believe that the people in western Mexico must have learned to make the rings from the Ecuadorians. But what if the people in western Mexico NEVER actually made the rings? What if they simply traded with the Ecuadorians for their rings? That would nullify the hypothesis, so let's hang on to this one.

It doesn't matter HOW the two groups were in contact. All that matters is that the two groups were in cultural contact. This information is irrelevant, so eliminate (B).

The archaeologists argue that the artisans from western Mexico learned the techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts, but the archaeologists don't care about WHERE that learning took place. Whether it took place in Mexico, Ecuador, or somewhere else, the archaeologists hypothesis could still be valid. (C) can thus be eliminated.

We want to determine whether the artisans from western Mexico learned the techniques for making the metal  rings  from the Ecuadorian artisans. We have no idea what kinds of  tools  were used by the Ecuadorians to make those rings (maybe the tools were metal, maybe they were not), so choice (D) can be eliminated.

The hypothesis is only concerned with 7th-century artisans in western Mexico and whether those artisans learned how to make metal rings from Ecuadorian artisans during that time. It makes no difference whether those techniques are still used in Ecuador  today , so eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.

egmat · Answer

Hi,

Let's look at below two questions:

Did you score 750 on GMAT?

Did you score 750 on GMAT in Mexico?

Would both questions help you in finding out whether the person has scored 750 on GMAT or not?

The answer is No. While the answer to the first question will obviously help you in determining whether the person has scored 750 on GMAT or not, the answer to the second question may not. If the answer to the second question is no, we have no clue whether the person did not score 750 on GMAT or he scored 750 but not in Mexico.

So, we can't really ignore part of questions to understand their meaning.

Now, let's look at option C:

(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico.

This is similar as saying "whether you can score more than 750 on GMAT without taking an classes". This is different from saying "whether you can score more than 750 on GMAT". The latter question is more about your capability to score 750 while the former question is more about your dependence on classes to score more than 750.

Similarly, option C is concerned about whether artisans could have learnt those techniques without leaving western Mexico. Now, we understand that learning inside or outside Mexico is irrelevant for us. Therefore, option C is irrelevant and incorrect.

Now, the highlighted part is wrong here. Conversation between the two groups is not an assumption here. The passage very clearly states that "the people of these two areas were in cultural contact".

Now,  coming to option A as to why it is correct

The conclusion is "the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts."

This is based on the premise that "Metal rings recently excavated form seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period."

Now, what if Mexican artists didn't even create these metal rings. What if these metal rings were actually created by Ecuadorian artisans and then brought through trade in Mexico? In that case, can we say that Mexican artists learnt techniques from Ecuadorian counterparts? No. In that case, we would be even doubtful whether Mexican artists knew about the techniques or not.

So, option A is on the same lines as our questions above. Therefore, it is correct.

Hope this helps!

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

nero44 · Answer

I'd go for A

A) That there has been communication between those two folks is undoubtful. Whether the Mexicans have imported these rings or have build them on their own can be found out by answering A. If true, it would cast doubt on the archaeologists hypothesis.

B) Out of scope, there has never been a differentiation between land and sea

C) If so... The Ecuadorians could've traveled to mexico to teach the techniques or the Mexicans could've learned them in Ecuador. It does not answer the question, whether they have learned those techniques or just have bought the metal rings

D) distortion, the stem talks about metal rings and metallurgic techniques... tools are never mentioned

E) Out of scope... the use of techniques today does not give light to the happenings in the seventh century.

plumber250 · Answer

Hi Score,

For answer C

(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico.

This doesn't actually matter. We need to know if they could learn these techniques from Ecuador, it doesn't matter where they were when they did it, it's no more likely that they got the info from travelling, from traders, etc.

But A....
 
(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century

This gives direct evidence for conversations between Mexico and Ecuador happening during this period, so makes it more likely that they would learn from each other.

So I'm confident A is correct.

James

score780 · Answer

Why are you focusing on where they were and where they did it. This is just an extra piece of information that does not affect the essential piece of information in C which is whether they learned the technique. I understand that by saying that they learned it without leaving Mexico, we exclude the possibility that they learnt it from ecuadorians in other ways for example by visiting Ecuador or etc. Yet, I still find answer C overall to be more relevant than answer A. Since when exchange of products means exchange of skills to make the products, especially that we are talking about "complex techniques". Conversations between the two people is an assumption. Maybe in the question stem they could have hinted at this but they did not. Net, I think this question is just annoyingly unclear.

BillyZ · Answer

Metal Rings
 
  Step 1: Identify the Question

The words   useful to establish in order to evaluate   in the question stem indicate that this is an  Evaluate the Argument  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Metal rings: 7c W. Mex same tech as Ec 7c + b4
Tech complex; prob not dev ind
Hyp: E dev first, M learn

Abbreviate heavily. You’ll only be on this problem for a couple of minutes; your short-term memory can retain the idea that “prob not dev ind” means “probably not developed independently.”

The archaeologists mentioned in the argument hypothesize that the Es developed this technology first because the technique was used in E earlier than the period in which the recently-found metal rings were made in M.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Evaluate questions, the goal is to find an answer choice that could “swing” the argument in two directions, either  strengthening  the argument or  weakening  it. A choice that can either  strengthen  or  weaken  the argument gives you a good way to evaluate whether the argument is valid.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT . If metal objects were traded from E to M in the relevant timeframe, then it is at least somewhat more likely that the Es also passed along information regarding how to manufacture these objects. That would  strengthen  the argument. On the other hand, if such objects were not traded, then it is somewhat less likely that the Es taught the Ms how to manufacture the metal— if they weren’t trading at all , or if the Ms didn’t find the metal rings interesting enough to trade for, then it’s less likely that the Es would have an opportunity to teach the Ms how to make these rings. This would  weaken  the argument. Since this choice could either  strengthen  or  weaken , it is correct.
(B) How people from the two cultures may have traveled does not impact whether the Es might have taught the Ms this particular technique. What matters is that they did interact with one another in some way, not by what method they traveled.
(C) The Ms could have learned the techniques from Es traveling to M. The Ms also could have learned the techniques by traveling to E. Either way, this choice does not provide additional information to help determine whether the initial hypothesis (that Es taught Ms this process) is valid.
(D) The argument doesn’t depend upon whether the metal rings were created from metal tools or tools made of other materials. Nor does it specify whether the metal rings were intended as tools or were for some other purpose, such as jewelry. The question of tools is irrelevant to whether the Es taught the Ms the technique in question.
(E) The argument does not hinge upon the future use of the techniques in question. It claims only that the Es taught the Ms these techniques at some point in or prior to the seventh century.

mihir0710 · Answer

Metal rings recently excavated form seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?
 
The argument says that a certain metallurgical technique was prevalent in both Mexico and Ecuador in 7th Century and this MT is quite complicated hence its independent development at both places is unlikely. Hence, Mexicans must have learned this MT from their Ecuadorian counterparts since, there was some cultural contact between the two areas...

(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century
 Seems a valid point. What if no metal trade was done in that cultural contact between the two places ? Conclusion will fall apart...
If metal trade was done, then there is a possibility that this MT may have been shared between the two...

(B) Whether travel between western Mexico and Ecuador in the seventh century would have been primarily by land or by sea
 Whether they traveled by sea or land (or flight !!) it does NOT make any difference on whether they could have traded this MT...

(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico.
 The argument never said that its learned at one place (mexico or ecuador) ...whichever place it may be ..we need proof that the MT was exchanged...
This option does not help us in doing that .

(D) Whether metal tools were used in the seventh-century settlements in western Mexico
 Lets say yes its used...so what ???
and lets say No..then what ???
Does not touch our conclusion at all

(E) Whether any of the techniques used in the manufacture of the metal rings found in western Mexico are still practiced among artisans in Ecuador today
 Again...it does not make any difference whether they use this technique now or not ...

AdityaHongunti · Answer

These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely.

"The techniques used to make the rings are pretty complex, so it's unlikely that the techniques were developed independently in each location. If we had been talking about some simple process, it would be possible that each civilization developed the process on their own. But in this case, it is more likely that only ONE of the two cultures developed the techniques."

GMATNinja  the above is your explanation for the mentioned part of the passage ... now the passage says that independent ( on their own) development in BOTH the regions was unlikely .. now what i dont understand is that if author is saying development was unlikely in both areas then how come is he saying that Equads knew the technique?? i mean did he learn from somewhere else??? because could NOT develop independently.. in you explanation you say that only ONE is probably the learner and the another is the teacher... BUt the author says both the regions coudl not develop independently.. this is really confusing me...please clarify,,, thankyou

VeritasKarishma   mikemcgarry   DmitryFarber   chetan2u   sayantanc2k

KarishmaB · Answer

Let's say there is a dish made using 25 ingredients and some complex techniques. You eat the dish in a restaurant in Sweden. After a week, you go to Los Angeles and you eat the same dish there too.
What would you think? That one of them learned it from the other, right? It is very unlikely that each restaurant developed the same dish independently. Out of 1000s of ingredients, how probable is it that both chose the exact 20 and used each in exactly the same way to get the same result independently of each other? One of the restaurants must have come up with the dish, then a chef from another restaurant must have visited and learned how to make it and then made in his own restaurant too.

That is what the argument is saying - it is too complex. So Mexicans must have learned from Ecuadorians who must have come up with it (since in Ecuador, those techniques were being used before 7th century too)

GMATNinja · Answer

The archaeologist states that independent development of this technique in  both  areas is unlikely.

The archaeologist is saying that this technique could not have evolved independently in Mexico  and  independently in Ecuador.
This is  not  the same as saying that this technique could not be developed independently,   period  .
This is  not  the same as saying that this technique could not be developed independently by   either   culture.

Here's another example that might help: Let's say I'm throwing a party, and I invite two brothers, Bob and Mac.

If I say, "It's unlikely that both Bob and Mac show up," the unlikely outcome is, "Bob and Mac show up" —  not , "Any brother shows up" or, "Either brother shows up,"

I hope this clarifies what's going on in the passage!

nikitamaheshwari · Answer

If D option had been metal objects? the would that make sense ?
If metal objects were used in Mexico then they would have taken the training if not then they would not have taken the training

GMATNinja · Answer

In this question, we're trying to determine which answer choice would be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis.

The hypothesis is:  "the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts."

(D) tells us:
 
Using "objects" instead of "tools" would not make (D) the correct answer.

The rings are special because making them requires techniques that are  "sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely."  It is the  techniques  required, not the rings themselves, that make the rings something to focus on.

It's possible that there were many metal objects used in Western Mexico. However, knowing whether this is true doesn't help you determine where those objects were made, who made them, or where the techniques for their production originated.

Further, it doesn't help us determine whether  "the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts,"  because we don't know if the objects need the same techniques as the rings to be made.

Remember, as a general rule it's not helpful to change answer choices and speculate on whether that would have worked. The GMAT asks you to find a correct answer  based on the information given  and not on what you think an answer choice might have been or should be.

I hope that helps!

mSKR · Answer

Hi  AndrewN  sir,

Can you check my reasoning while solving this question . I stayed at surface wording without deep diving into detail analysis of each option. With this method, I was able to select option under less than 2 minutes. But I did 2 mistakes in reasoning as below:

Metal objects ? 
When I read this option, I assumed rings are not part of metal objects, so this option: red light
Mistake: metal rings can be metal objects
Question: How to avoid such mistakes?

I assumed the meaning as: ok, Mexs learnt complex techniques from Ecudorian counterparts. Without leaving or not leaving , it does not matter . The option says "learnt", so it matches what I am looking for.
Hence I marked this option as green light
Mistake: the option does not say learnt ,but it says learnt without leaving . Emphasis is on actually leaving , so it doesn't mean they learnt.
Clarification: The meaning should be taken as whole. E.g.: Ram can run on days without rain. But it doesn't mean he ran. it maybe possible that he never ran. So need to take the meaning as whole. 
Am I right?
Some guidance to avoid such silly errors.

Thanks !

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  imSKR . I will respond in-line below.

Remember that  specificity  in an answer choice is often harder to argue against than vague descriptions. As you pointed out yourself, the rings are metallic objects. The passage even goes out of its way to clarify that the discussion is centered on  metal rings . Logically speaking, if such objects were  traded  between the two cultures during the time period in question, then it might not have taken person-to-person teaching of those metallurgical techniques for Mexican artisans to have acquired them. Moreover, regarding your question, keep in mind that you do not have to make an automatic determination as to whether an answer choice is  correct  when you lay eyes on it. In your first pass of the five options, you might just want to pick off obvious  incorrect  responses. This one, with its cautious language that lines up with the details of the passage, looks decent for starters.

Yes, you are correct. Whether Mexican artisans learned the metallurgical techniques with or without leaving western Mexico is beside the point. We are merely concerned with evaluating whether the Ecuadoreans had passed on their knowledge to the Mexicans, who then used that knowledge to craft the metal rings in question. There is an English idiom that goes, "The devil is in the detail." You can read about it on Wikipedia,  here . I like to remind myself and my students of this notion when evaluating answer choices. In this one, the detail, the degree of specificity I talked about earlier, works against it (just as  primarily by land or by sea  works against (B), if you were even considering it, or  are still practiced...  in (E)).

I hope that helps. Work on accuracy first. Efficiency comes later. Good luck with your practice.

- Andrew

jack0997 · Answer

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma

For the correct option A, even if the answer is  yes, metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century , does this answer the question that Mexicans learned ring technique from Ecuadorian? I think No. Metal objects trading might have been done for some purposes.

KarishmaB · Answer

jack0997 (A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century Yes, they were traded - Well, then the Mexican artisans MAY not have learned to make the rings. The rings found in Mexico could have arrived from Ecuador. Weakens our conclusion. No, they weren't - Well, the rings did not arrive from Ecuador. They were probably made in Mexico only. Then it strengthens our argument that the Mexican artisans learned the technique from Ecuadorian artisans. The yes-no answers impact our conclusion differently. So knowing whether the answer is yes or no will help us. Check out these two posts too: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... reasoning/ https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... s-part-ii/

jack0997 · Answer

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

For the correct option A, even if the answer is yes, metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century, does this answer the question that Mexicans learned ring technique from Ecuadorian? I think No. Metal objects trading might have been done for some purposes.[/quote]

jack0997

(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century

Yes, they were traded - Well, then the Mexican artisans MAY not have learned to make the rings. The rings found in Mexico could have arrived from Ecuador. Weakens our conclusion.

No, they weren't - Well, the rings did not arrive from Ecuador. They were probably made in Mexico only. Then it strengthens our argument that the Mexican artisans learned the technique from Ecuadorian artisans.

The yes-no answers impact our conclusion differently. So knowing whether the answer is yes or no will help us.

Check out these two posts too:

https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... reasoning/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... s-part-ii/[/quote]

Quote:

@VeritasKarishma, You answered...

No, they weren't - Well, the rings did not arrive from Ecuador. They were probably made in Mexico only. Then it strengthens our argument that the Mexican artisans learned the technique from Ecuadorian artisans.

My question is how come above strengthens our argument that the Mexican artisans learned the technique from Ecuadorian artisans?

At best we can conclude that since metal rings were not traded, whether Mexican artisans learned the technique from Ecuadorian artisans is inconclusive.

Could you pl. elaborate. Thank you.

GMATNinja · Answer

If metal objects WERE traded from Ecuador to northern Mexico, then maybe the rings were made in Ecuador and then ended up in Mexico. This would weaken the conclusion that the techniques were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts. If metal objects WERE NOT traded from Ecuador to northern Mexico, then the above scenario is ruled out . Sure, this doesn't in any way PROVE that the conclusion is correct, but ruling out an alternate explanation provides some support for the conclusion offered by the archeologists. Here's another example: Let's say a cookie is stolen from the cookie jar, and I conclude that you stole that cookie. (Mmm... cookies.

) To support my conclusion, I could rule out other possible suspects. This would certainly not be an ironclad case against you, but it does support my conclusion to some degree. In other words, you're right that the archeologists' conclusion would not be solidly proven or disproven based on the answer to the question in (A). But knowing the answer to (A) would provide some evidence to either strengthen or weaken that conclusion, so (A) is the correct answer to this question. I hope that helps!

darefadeji · Answer

On option D - it is stated metallurgical techniques are used. Isn't this enough to make it relevant whether they had metal tools in Mexico?

Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards