The antique violins found in the man's attic in northern France were

In this question, it is mentioned that neither of the two i.e. French or Italians could have made the violins independently. Moreover, these two regions were having a cultural contact.
Now here is the punchline, from nowhere the author concludes that " the craftsmanship techniques used to make the violin found in the French man's attic were learned by French violin makers from Italian counterparts" i.e. French were dependent on Italians. HOW?

If there is any reason that can help to prove the punchline correct, then it will be the answer.
Try answering answer choice a with YES.
Rest all are crap.

karishma,

Could you pls explain this argument & poe.

Regards,
Ammu

The argument mentions that the independent development of the violins was possible both in France and Italy since there was cultural contact between them. We have to evaluate the credibility of this statement. "A" poses a question whether violins were traded from Italy to northern France during the sixteenth century. If violins were traded, then the independent development wasn't there; but if the violins were not traded, then the conclusion is true. So, this is the only answer which will help analyse the credibility of the argument. In Evaluate questions, we assess an assumption behind the conclusion. So, a "yes" out here weakens the conclusion and a "no" strengthens the conclusion. "B" discusses the means to travel which is irrelevant."C" talks about whether the craftsmanship techniques could be learned without leaving France which is again not relevant." D" is completely off-context and "E" talks about the present day usage which is again off-context.

didn't get the logic behind how option A is the correct one?

The argument states that the independent development in both areas was unlikely. Hence it was concluded that the French violin makers learnt the techniques from their Italian counterparts. So any answer choice which implies that there was interaction between the French and Italians is the answer. Hence as "A" states if violins were traded from Italy to Northern France then it is possible that the techniques need not be learnt but if there was no trade then it is obvious the French learnt the techniques from their Italian counterparts.

Well, I'm not sure about the explanation yet. I find a great deal of difficulty in evaluate questions. I could not convincingly find the answer in any of the 5 choices. However, I'll restrict my question to answer option (A).

The question asks whether the French learned the techniques from Italians. A correct answer option would be framed in such a way that a Yes would favour either French/Italians and a No would favour the other party.

But answer choice A restricts the scope only to trade, which in my opinion does not convincingly offer the explanation. Consider a 'Yes' to answer option (A). i.e. let's say the violins were traded from France to Italy. This could mean that French didn't learn the technique from Italians. So Credit goes to - The French.
But, this could also mean that French as part of cultural exchange, came in contact with Italian violin makers, learned the technique and then produced violins at a mass scale and exported them to Italy (The reason may be anything - better resource availability, cost effective production etc.). So Credit goes to - The Italians.

Thus, from a yes answer, the credit of having invented the technique could go to either the French or the Italians.

Consider a 'No' to the answer option (A). One way to interpret this is that Italians learned the technique first and were self sufficient in violin production, so they didn't need to import it from France. So Credit goes to - The Italians.

The other way to look at it is, though the French invented the technique, they simply didn't export the violins to Italy, for whatsoever reasons (we needn't worry about that here). So Credit goes to - The French.

So, I simply couldn't resolve the ambiguity between the French or Italians through both a Yes/No. Could some expert help me here?

Thanks.

This question is exact copy of a CR question available in OG 13 Diagnostic Test. Only the wording is changed. The position of answerd are even kept the same.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The antique violins found in the man's attic in northern France were made using the same craftsmanship techniques as those used by Italian violin makers in the 16th century.

historians hypothesize that the craftsmanship techniques used to make the violin found in the French man's attic were learned by French violin makers from Italian counterparts.

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

(A) Whether violins were traded from Italy to northern France during the sixteenth century..........if they are traded, then it is not must to learn the technique and vice versa.

(B) Whether travel between northern France and Italy in the sixteenth century would have been primarily by land or by sea.................it does not matter the route of trade.

(C) Whether violin makers from northern France could have learned complex craftsmanship techniques from their Italian counterparts without actually leaving northern France.......whether makers left the office or not for learning is out of concern. They can travel, learn and be back as well.

(D) Whether wood-making tools were used in the sixteenth century villages in northern France...........out of scope

(E) Whether any of the techniques used in the manufacture of the violins found in the northern French man's attic are still practiced among violin makers in Italy today................how they did in the past is our concern not whether they are continuing till now.

The antique violins found in the man's attic in northern France were made using the same craftsmanship techniques as those used by Italian violin makers in the 16th century. 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, historians hypothesize that the craftsmanship techniques used to make the violin found in the French man's attic were learned by French violin makers from Italian counterparts.

Type- Evaluate
Boil it down - Since French and Italians were in cultural contact, the French learned the craftsmanship techniques from Italian counterparts.


(A) Whether violins were traded from Italy to northern France during the sixteenth century - Correct - If the violins were traded, then it weakens the conclusion else is strengthens - variance test
(B) Whether travel between northern France and Italy in the sixteenth century would have been primarily by land or by sea - Irrelevant - the means of transportation is irrelevant
(C) Whether violin makers from northern France could have learned complex craftsmanship techniques from their Italian counterparts without actually leaving northern France - Irrelevant
(D) Whether wood-making tools were used in the sixteenth century villages in northern France - Out of scope
(E) Whether any of the techniques used in the manufacture of the violins found in the northern French man's attic are still practiced among violin makers in Italy today - Irrelevant - whether the techniques are used even today is irrelevant to the argument

Answer A

Some screenshots from the video explanation - good way to visualize the problem.

#eGMAT can you solve this?

The premise: "These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely" should be taken as true and cannot be questioned as per GMAT.

The answer choice "Whether violins were traded from Italy to northern France during the sixteenth century" will give room for questioning the Premise when answered with "yes". It was made in Italy and traded to France. It means it was independently developed in Italy and trade to France.

How will you #eGMAT approach this question?

I try to understand A. So, the argument states that French learnt violin making from Italian. Also, before it is mentioned that it is harder to independently make these violins. If there is a trade over violin from Italy to northern France, it means that there is a cultural contact, however if vice versa no violin trade( which means French did not know what happened in Italy, and did everyhing on their own independently.
I do not know if I understand this correctly, so I would like you to answer from the scratch like I did not understand anything at all. Thank you so much in advance!

Alijavad

It's important to distinguish between premise and conclusion. Based on the evidence in the first 3 lines (premises), historians have hypothesized something (the conclusion). So we don't KNOW that the French learned from the Italians. Rather, that is the conclusion that we have been asked to evaluate.

So why do historians think that the French learned from the Italians? Because these violins were found in France. They were made in a style similar to the Italian, and they are complex enough that they aren't likely to have developed independently. It would be like if you saw two countries in which the exact same sport was played--you might figure that one country learned it from the other.

So what's wrong with this argument? The historians are assuming that if the violins in France look like Italian violins, this means that the French learned from the Italians. But what if the Italians learned from the French? Or what if these are not French violins? This latter idea is addressed in A. If violins were traded, it's possible that no one in France actually learned to make Italian-style violins.