Sviatovin is a medieval Moringian text whose author and exact date of

The argument clearly states "... the events in the life of Prince Sviatov that the text describes occurred in 1165"

So we KNOW that it was written in 1165 or later. The point to consider is whether it was written between 1165 and 1167. The end point of this range is under dispute. The conclusion claims that it was written in or before 1167 because his father is identified as living in it.





"Accuracy of exploits" means exploits happened the way they are described. This is how the war was fought, this is how the attack happened etc. We are given that they happened in 1165 (premise to be taken as true). But the exploits do not help us get the 1167 date.

Hi VeritasKarishma - Thank you for everything !

Followup on C

On C , it seems like you are assuming that an inaccurate family composition will ALWAYS mean an in-accurate portrayal of the father in every inaccurate family composition scenario.

It's quite possible that a family composition is INACCURATE but has portrayed the father accurately (perhaps the INACCURATE family composition has forgotten the mother,grandmother,nephew, 2nd cousin... but kept the father)

Thus its still possible to have an INACCURATE family composition and still have the father portrayed accurately in this INACCURATE family composition.

Attached is an example of the family tree i think about when i hear the word family composition

The argument says that since the text mentions the father as alive, he was alive at that time.

What will be a rebuttal?
You are assuming that the diagram represents the family accurately. The diagram could have inaccuracies.
That is all (C) says.

You are trying to negate (C) and getting lost on it. That is why I advise people to not use negation since it often leads to confusion until and unless one is adept at using it.

Negate the assumption and include it with your premises:

- In a diagram in Sviatovin, the father is shown as living.
- The diagram has inaccuracies.

Can I now conclude that the father must be living at that time so Sviatovin was written between 1165 and 1167?
I cannot conclude this. I am given that the diagram has inaccuracies.

H GMATNinja @e-gmat

On C , it seems like you are assuming that an inaccurate family composition will ALWAYS mean an in-accurate portrayal of the father specifically in every inaccurate family composition scenario.

It's quite possible that a family composition is INACCURATE but has portrayed the father accurately (perhaps the INACCURATE family composition has forgotten the mother,grandmother,nephew, 2nd cousin... but kept the father)

Thus its still possible to have an INACCURATE family composition and still have the father portrayed accurately in this INACCURATE family composition.

Attached is a example family tree where my Dad is listed accurately BUT my grandparents are not listed accurately.

hi VeritasKarishma nightblade354 carouselambra

Actually I marked A as the answer because I interpreted meaning of A as:


Life Of Prince Sviatov is not a fictious . it was not the subject of other texts. It means it was really a true person.
I don't know why such interpretation came in mind. If the meaning of A would have been interpreted as what I have mentioned, A needs to have such words as story, fiction etc. , Am i right?

The argument clearly tells you that it is not a story.

...the events in the life of Prince Sviatov that the text describes occurred in 1165, and in the diagram of Sviatov's family that accompanies the text his father, who died in 1167, is identified as still living...

The events occurred in 1165. His father died in 1167. If someone tells you this, you know that they are talking about real life.
So option (A) cannot be interpreted the way you did.

This question is written a bit differently than most GMAT assumption questions, so you have to be very careful in your approach.

Consider this alternate example:

"Simone Biles is going to compete in the 2021 Olympics. During the 2016 Olympics, she won 5 medals. She will certainly earn at least one medal in the 2021 Olympics, assuming that she earns as many medals as she did in the 2016 Olympics."

Now, you may see something strange here. My conclusion is that Simone "will certainly earn at least one medal in the 2021 Olympics." My assumption goes way beyond that: I'm assuming that "she earns as many medals (i.e., 5 medals) as she did in the 2016 Olympics."

Now, I don't absolutely NEED to assume that Simone will earn 5 medals to conclude that she will certainly earn at least one medal.

But, if I assume that she earns 5 medals, then I know FOR A FACT that she will earn at least one medal.

In other words, by making my assumption a bit excessive, I've ENSURED that my conclusion follows from my evidence and assumption. (If you like a bit of jargon, this would be a "sufficient" assumption. By contrast, most GMAT questions ask us to find a "necessary" assumption.)

Going back to the official question: The author concludes that "Sviatovin must have been written between 1165 and 1167." One piece of evidence presented is that "in the diagram of Sviatov's family that accompanies the text his father, who died in 1167, is identified as still living."

If you assume that "the diagram accurately represents the composition of Sviatov's family at the time Sviatovin was written," then you KNOW that Sviatovin was written before the father's death in 1167.

Sure, this info is a bit more than you need -- you also know that the grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members are accurately represented. But that's not a problem in this question, because we're not looking for a narrow assumption that we really NEED. Instead, we're looking for an assumption that GUARANTEES that the author's conclusion follows from the evidence presented.

(C) does does the trick, and is the correct answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

(B) the author of Sviatovin intended it to provide as accurate a report about Prince Sviatov's exploits as possible

I eliminated this option because of the word 'intended'. The main argument here is to ensure that the information (for ex -diagram) provided in the question stem is as accurate as it can be. If it is not then my assumption that the text was written between 1165-67 falls.

In this option, if we look closely, it says the author 'intended' - Does this mean that the author actually provides the most accurate report? - Well we do not know for sure. He/She may/may not have. I would pick this option only if there was no better alternative provided to me.

Please can someone validate/help me understand if my reasoning above is accurate? GMATNinja CrackVerbal Brent

avigutman AnthonyRitz
i am unable to eliminate (B)



Plenty of gaps if you ask me



So, these were the gaps floating in my mind.

Given that - i thought (B) touched on Gap (ii)

If the author had no intention to provide accurate reports on Sviatovin’s exploits – then the book for all we know is a legends story regarding Sviatovin..We cant trust anything that is written in the book (be it the events of Sviatovin or the fact that Sviatovin's dad was even alive when this book was written)

Given the author had no intention to write down an accurate portrayal of events, we cant MAP any events of Sviatovin to 1165 specifically.

That break's down the first half of the argument (i.e. the book was written AFTER 1165)

Thus i chose (B)

thoughts ?

But the father was still alive, according to the text, when the text was written. Are you suggesting that the “biography” may have claimed that the father was still alive when in fact he wasn’t? Or that the text writer perhaps hadn’t yet heard about the father’s death?

These last two seem similar to one another. They seem to go against the premise, don’t you think? We know that the events described in the text did in fact happen, jabhatta2

Posted from my mobile device

Regarding the yellow, so what ? If i can explain with an analogy : Instead of Prince Sviatov, lets say this text/book is about Churchill instead (Can be anyone)

take this one for example - Churchill Book

-- this biography talks about the events sorrounding churchill in 1930's
-- In this biography, Churchill's dad [Randolph Henry Churchill] is listed as being alive in the 1930's
-- We know Churchill's dad [Randolph Henry Churchill] died in 1942
-- All the events mentioned in this book that happened to Churchill in the 1930's we know are true (other historians can be cross-checked)

Can we conclude -- this BOOK ITSELF, written by the author, was written in the 1930's ?

No - the book was written in 2012.

Is the above the same as the below, jabhatta2?

Hi kop18

Let's break this down!

The author concludes that Sviatovin must have been written between 1165 and 1167. We have to find out what he assumed when he drew this conclusion.

Option B talks of the author’s intention to accurately report Prince Sviatov's exploits. How will this intention – whether he finally produced an accurate report or not – explain why the argument's author is saying that Sviatovin must have been written between 1165 and 1167? It doesn’t make sense logically.

Let me negate Option B: The author of Sviatovin DID NOT INTEND it to provide as accurate a report about Prince Sviatov's exploits as possible.

Even if he didn’t intend to accurately report Prince Sviatov's exploits, the author could still conclude that Sviatovin must have been written between 1165 and 1167. The negation does nothing to the conclusion.

Let's look at the data given to us. The argument tells us that Prince Sviatov’s father died in 1167, but while describing the events that took place in 1165, the father was still alive. Had the book been written after 1167, the writer would have pointed out that the father died in 1167. But since the diagram says that the father was still alive, the book must surely have been written before 1167.

All this, of course, is assuming that the information that has been provided in the book is accurate. I mean, no one knows who the author is or even when this ancient text was composed, right?

This is exactly what Option C is saying.

Let me negate Option C: The diagram DOES NOT accurately represent the composition of Sviatov's family at the time Sviatovin was written.

If the diagram is not accurate, how can the author conclude that Sviatovin must have been written between 1165 and 1167? He can’t because this conclusion is dependent on the accuracy of the diagram.

Nitha Jay

avigutman - i dont see any meaningful difference.

The biography (like most biographies) is written in a manner in which the book describes a day in the life of Winston Churchill. So Churchill attended cabinet meeting on Jan 1st 1935. Churchill spoke in parliament on Jan 2nd 1935. Then Churchill visisted his parents the next day on Jan 3rd 1935....

So obviously this biography, will have Churchill's father [Randolph Henry Churchill]
- identified as still living (remember - Randolf Churchill died in 1942 only)
and/or
- listed as being alive

The biography, focussing on the 1930's, will have to identify / list / describe Churchill's father as still alive (because Churchill's father dies in 1942 only)

But the biography was written in 2012.

Thats how I thought about it at-least

Just to confirm, jabhatta2: you are no longer arguing for answer choice (B), correct? In fact, the above points to answer choice (C) more than anything else.
To avoid an argument regarding how biographies are supposed to be written, jabhatta2, let's remember that we're talking about a diagram that accompanies a text. Perhaps "the diagram of Sviatov's family that accompanies the text" is outdated, misinformed, or inaccurate (that's what answer choice (C) suggests). But if I attach a diagram of the composition of the British royal family to a text that I'm writing today (Sep 20, 2022), and in that diagram I have Queen Elizabeth II listed as still alive, that diagram does NOT accurately represents the composition of the British royal family at the time that my text was written (Sep 20, 2022).
Please let me know whether this helps clarify, jabhatta2!

There are already good replies here, so I'll just weigh in on one point about B:

This answer says that


[emphasis added]

This seems off-point about the question of Sviatov's family tree. Like, even if you weren't trying to accurately report Sviatov's exploits, does that give us any particular reason to think you'd get the family tree wrong? That you'd report the father as alive when he was actually dead, or vice versa? I don't think it's self-evident, at the very least. You end up speculating. And that makes B a poor answer.

Thank avigutman

The queen analogy really helped

Just one followup before I give my thoughts.. The phrase



Who is proscribing the year 1165?

Is the text itself proscribing that the events (described in the text) OCCURED in 1165
OR
Is the text just describing events. Then we historians LATER ON are MAPPING those events to the year 1165 ?

Who is doing this 'proscribing' of 1165 ?

Can we say or we can't say ?

I thought it was the LATTER (based on SC logic)

----------------------------------------------

I ask because When it comes to (B) – I think the only way to eliminate (B) is to focus on the ‘jump’ between exploits and events

If (B – varation) had said this, I argue (B-variant) would be an assumption



If (B-variant) was given, then we cant say if the book was written AFTER 1165 specifically