NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 20:41 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 20:41
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   
Tags:
Difficulty: 655-705 Levelx   Evaluate Argumentx                        
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
kimmyg
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 106
Own Kudos [?]: 2396 [261]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 19 Jun 2021, 09:13
26
Kudos
235
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

65% (02:04) correct 35% (02:23) wrong based on 8881 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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?


(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

OG2017 Diagnostic V69 P34


Show Spoiler
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.

[b]Step 3: Pause and State the Goal[/b]

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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A

Originally posted by kimmyg on 05 Oct 2005, 08:49.
Last edited by Bunuel on 19 Jun 2021, 09:13, edited 7 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [88]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   05 Jan 2018, 02:39
50
Kudos
38
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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?

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
(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

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.
User avatar
L
egmat
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4342
Own Kudos [?]: 30776 [8]
Given Kudos: 634
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   07 May 2014, 09:16
6
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
score780 wrote:
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.


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.

score780 wrote:
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.


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
General Discussion
User avatar
nero44
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 135
Own Kudos [?]: 395 [3]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   05 Oct 2005, 10:21
3
Kudos
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.
User avatar
plumber250
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 912 [2]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   26 Mar 2013, 01:39
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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
User avatar
score780
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 38 [3]
Given Kudos: 43
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   26 Mar 2013, 08:29
3
Kudos
plumber250 wrote:
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


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.
User avatar
L
BillyZ
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1174
Own Kudos [?]: 20705 [6]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   16 Apr 2017, 20:56
6
Kudos
kimmyg wrote:
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?

(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

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.
User avatar
P
mihir0710
Current Student
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
Posts: 474
Own Kudos [?]: 946 [1]
Given Kudos: 206
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.65
WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   16 Jun 2017, 05:12
1
Kudos
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 ...
User avatar
P
AdityaHongunti
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 560
Own Kudos [?]: 931 [0]
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: Boston U '22 (S) Smeal "22 (S) Krannert '22 (I) Katz '22 (I) UC Davis '22 (S)
GPA: 3.6
WE:Operations (Consumer Products)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   01 Nov 2018, 10:34
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
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64884 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   02 Nov 2018, 07:34
Expert Reply
AdityaHongunti wrote:
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


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)
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [0]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   04 Nov 2018, 20:27
Expert Reply
AdityaHongunti wrote:
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

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!
User avatar
B
nikitamaheshwari
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2020
Posts: 84
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [1]
Given Kudos: 131
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2020, 02:20
1
Kudos
GMATNinja wrote:
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?

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
(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

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.


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
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [1]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   14 Sep 2020, 14:22
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
nikitamaheshwari wrote:
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

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

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!
User avatar
L
mSKR
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1378
Own Kudos [?]: 846 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   29 Oct 2020, 21:42
Quote:
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?




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:

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

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?

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

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 !
avatar
L
AndrewN
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6856 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   30 Oct 2020, 06:19
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Hello, imSKR. I will respond in-line below.

imSKR wrote:
Quote:
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?




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:

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

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?

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.

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

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 !

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
avatar
S
jack0997
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 68 [0]
Given Kudos: 25
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   19 Jan 2021, 04:44
GMATNinja wrote:
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?

Quote:
(A) Whether

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
(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

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.


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.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64884 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   19 Jan 2021, 23:15
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
jack0997 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
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?

Quote:
(A) Whether

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
(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

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.


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.


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/
avatar
S
jack0997
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 68 [0]
Given Kudos: 25
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   20 Jan 2021, 05:49
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.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [1]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   25 Jan 2021, 12:18
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Quote:
Quote:
jack0997 wrote:
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.


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:
@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.

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. :-P ) 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!
avatar
B
darefadeji
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Dec 2020
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink] New post   28 May 2021, 14:35
GMATNinja wrote:
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?

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
(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

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.


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?
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the [#permalink]
28 May 2021, 14:35
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions