Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:39 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:39
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
harshpurohit3700
Joined: 24 Sep 2024
Last visit: 23 Mar 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
32
 [11]
Given Kudos: 13
Location: India
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.2
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Posts: 5
Kudos: 32
 [11]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
9
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bismuth83
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Sep 2024
Last visit: 01 Aug 2025
Posts: 719
Own Kudos:
2,605
 [5]
Given Kudos: 441
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 719
Kudos: 2,605
 [5]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Blackcrow1972
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
171
 [2]
Given Kudos: 39
Posts: 63
Kudos: 171
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Blackcrow1972
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 39
Posts: 63
Kudos: 171
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is my reasoning fine?
Rodriguez stated, "That period included some less dry decades." This does not mean that every less dry decade must still be "somewhat dry." A completely non-dry decade, such as 950–959, could still fall under the category of "less dry" compared to the extremely dry decades. Therefore, the existence of a decade that is not dry at all (according to the table) does not conclusively disprove Rodriguez's assertion
User avatar
Ab1313
Joined: 21 Dec 2016
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
6
 [1]
Given Kudos: 68
Location: India
Schools: HEC '26
GPA: 2.8
Schools: HEC '26
Posts: 8
Kudos: 6
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
All periods had rainfall below average and as Dr. Rodriguez mentions "That period included some less dry decades but also at least four extremely dry decades" we can see from the table that there were 4 times when the rainfall was <70%, hence his assertions are correct based on the table.

Blackcrow1972
Is my reasoning fine?
Rodriguez stated, "That period included some less dry decades." This does not mean that every less dry decade must still be "somewhat dry." A completely non-dry decade, such as 950–959, could still fall under the category of "less dry" compared to the extremely dry decades. Therefore, the existence of a decade that is not dry at all (according to the table) does not conclusively disprove Rodriguez's assertion
Moderators:
Math Expert
105356 posts
496 posts