I believe that I find myself in this trap sometimes as well.
A statement can strengthen or support the conclusion, yet NOT be a necessary assumption to get from the Supporting Premises to the Conclusion.
I think if B were true, you could say that it makes it slightly more likely that traveling artisans created these mosaics. After all, if they are from regions all over, it might make sense that a traveling artisan would have drawn these.
However, is the statement from B absolutely necessary for the logic of the argument to work?
The author says these mosaics contained pictures of animals that are not local. Based on this major premise, he concludes it must have been a traveling artisan that made these mosaics.
B isn’t necessary to “connect” or “glue” the facts to the Conclusion. Even if there is not a single region to which all the animals are native, is it necessary to assume this fact to conclude that traveling artisans made the mosaics? Not really.
However, negate E. The whole argument is based pretty much on this fact that the animals don’t exist in the city, so some traveling artisan must have made them.
But if there WERE a common knowledge base, the artisans in the city could have easily made these mosaics and the author’s argument doesn’t make as much sense anymore.
Does anything help? I hope it came across clear, I don’t envy any GMAT tutor who has to explain these questions on a daily basis.
aygulismayilova wrote:
Hey,
I stuck between B and E. My reasoning to favor B is that if there is no single region to which all the species are native, then the people who created those mosaics are coming from various regions. Therefore, they are considered travelling artisans.
Please explain the flaw in my reasoning.
Thanks in advance.
Posted from my mobile device