Pueblo Bonito is a large, ancient building in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

Question

Pueblo Bonito is a large, ancient building in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Archaeologists and historians have long considered Pueblo Bonito the palatial residence of a chief or king. However, researchers have found very little evidence of the luxury goods that one would expect to find in a palace. Therefore, it is more likely that Pueblo Bonito was a religious center where special rituals were performed.

The boldface portion plays which of the following roles?

A) It is a claim for which the argument provides further evidence
B) It is the main conclusion of the argument
C) It provides evidence that the argument opposes
D) It is a claim that the argument concludes is false
E) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument

Source: Manhattan Prep Online Premium Class Discussion Question

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

Manhattan Prep Online Premium Class.PNG [ 136.03 KiB | Viewed 9190 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

E

Archit3110 · Answer

conclusion of argument : 
Therefore, it is more likely that Pueblo Bonito was a religious center where special rituals were performed.

evidence : However, researchers have found very little evidence of the luxury goods that one would expect to find in a palace

IMO E

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Hi my honorable experts  RonPurewal ,  MartyTargetTestPrep ,  jennpt ,  AjiteshArun ,  ccooley ,  DmitryFarber ,  VeritasKarishma ,  GMATNinja ,  egmat ,  generis .
This question is discussed in  Manhattan Prep Online Premium Class Discussion Question , but I'm not still sure how the authority of ManhattanPrep makes the choice E legit?
According to my understanding, the  bold part  is a  factual evidence AGAINST the belief given in the statement 2  with   green color  .This bold part NEVER  supports the main conclusion of the argument! 
Is my understanding wrong?
Thanks__

AjiteshArun · Answer

1. Some people thought that PB was a palace.
2. But researchers have  not  found evidence of things that you would normally find in palaces.
3. Therefore, PB was  not  a palace.

You seem to have identified (1) as the conclusion. It is actually the last statement (3) that is the author's conclusion, and (2) supports it. In fact, if you want to focus on the what the author thinks,  it is actually best to ignore (1) completely .

BrightOutlookJenn · Answer

Hi  AsadAbu

Any sentence that begins with "Therefore" is almost certain to be a conclusion. Here, our sentence with "Therefore" is indeed the main conclusion of the argument, and the boldfaced sentence does support that conclusion.

Almost all boldface questions have two conclusions: the conclusion that the author thinks is wrong, and the one that the author proposes or supports. (Every now and then you get one with only one conclusion, though.) When you read through a boldface question, I would try to put my finger on 1) the belief that the author thinks is wrong, 2) the belief that the author thinks is right, 3) how the facts (evidence) given relate to these two conclusions.

It can be helpful to identify what went wrong in your process of approaching this question. I get that you had identified the green sentence as the main conclusion ... what did you think about the last sentence?

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Hi  jennpt ,
Thanks for your feedback.

The green part is not the author side; it is actually OTHER SIDE.  So, how can be the other side's conclusion the main conclusion?

The last sentence is the main conclusion of the author. As far I know, author NEVER support OTHER SIDE's conclusion! So, here is the question WHY author take care of OTHER SIDE's (Archaeologists and historians) consideration (green part) in CR?
The simple answer: Author discusses the OTHER SIDE's (Archaeologists and historians) consideration just to DISMISS their (Archaeologists and historians) IDEA!

----
The Bold part may be the EVIDENCE, but it did not SUPPORT the main conclusion, I think. Here is the explanation below on my thinking.
 But, the BOLD face did not say that the researcher got religious things in this building! If the researcher DON"T get any religious things (e.g., Quran, Bible, Ramayan), how do the author say that it's a religious center (Mosque/ temple/church)? 
Thanks__

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Thanks  AjiteshArun  for your clarification.
 Suppose,  I'm the author of the following CR. I'm going to write the following CR part by part (by numbering...)
 1)  AjiteshArun is a   registered user   in the gmatclub who holds 51 in verbal.
 2)  Expert  jennpt  think that AjiteshArun is a   verbal expert   in the gmatclub.
 3)   However, I did not find any clue where it is written that AjiteshArun is a  verbal expert  in the gmatclub forum. 
 4)  Therefore, it is more likely that AjiteshArun is a   Quant Expert  .
So, how the  BOLD part  (3)  supports  the number (4)?
There is no discussion in bold part about Quant.
Thanks__

BrightOutlookJenn · Answer

Hi  AsadAbu

Here's the link that I think you are missing. We can make the leap to say that a fact that weakens our opponent actually strengthens us. You're right, the boldface sentence doesn't give evidence to prove that the building is a religious building. But it is a strong consideration to suggest that the usual conclusion (luxury palace) is probably wrong, opening the door for our author's alternative conclusion.

The problem with your sample argument about  AjiteshArun  is that you actually gave evidence in your first statement (the V51) that proves that he's a verbal expert. To better mimic the argument we're discussing, I would modify yours as follows:
 (Note that this is now becoming a  fictional  example, because AjiteshArun has excellent verbal expertise.)

1) AjiteshArun is a registered user in the gmatclub who has received 683 Kudos. 
2) Many users see this number of Kudos and think that AjiteshArun is probably a verbal expert.
3) However, I did not find any posts by AjiteshArun in the verbal part of the gmatclub forum.
4) Therefore, it is more likely that AjiteshArun is a quant expert.

Notes: 1) He has a lot of Kudos; it's unclear as to exactly which type of posts generated the Kudos.
2) One way he could have earned the Kudos would be as a verbal expert.
3) However, we can't find the usual evidence we would expect to support the idea that he is a verbal expert.
4) So, he must have done something else to earn the Kudos. The next most likely source of Kudos is the quant forum, so I conclude he is probably a quant expert.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

I need to have more clarification on this part. Could you help me out, please?
Thank you so much  jennpt  for your kind help.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Pueblo Bonito is an extraordinary building that could have been a luxury palace. It also could have been used for religious purposes or for something else.

People have concluded from its size and whatever other features it has that it was a palace.

The author provides evidence that it was not a palace.

The author has concluded that, if Pueblo Bonito was not a palace, it is likely that it was used for religious purposes.

Yes, the author is relying on an assumption. The assumption is that a large, extraordinary building that was not used as a palace was likely used for religious purposes.

If you operate under that assumption, by proving that this building was not a palace, you prove that it was used for religious purposes.

So, if you operate under that assumption, the boldfaced portion supports the conclusion.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Sir,
 MartyTargetTestPrep ,
This one is my main asking point. I can't replace the  underlined part  by just saying  "Therefore, it is more likely that Pueblo Bonito was a White House where President of United States lives".  I can't assume whatever I like in this sorta question, I guess. I should have definite evidence to say "Pueblo Bonito was a White House".
Thanks for your cooperation, Sir!

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Well, the use of some common sense in answering CR questions is allowed. We all know that ancient peoples did have palaces and religious centers. The president of the US has never lived anywhere near Pueblo Bonito.

So, it's pretty reasonable, to say that, if an extraordinary building from ancient times in that location was not a palace, it was a religious center. Nobody is concluding that, if it was not a palace, it was, for instance, the Empire State Building.

Also, if there is evidence that indicates that it was not a palace, it's not illogical to say that it was "more likely" a religious center.

Also, whether you feel that the boldfaced portion actually supports the conclusion, the truth is that the author uses it to support the conclusion. That's the purpose the boldfaced portion serves in the argument.

AjiteshArun · Answer

That was a great example

You're looking at how good the support is. You don't need to do that in this question type. Our task is to identify , not evaluate . In other words, you have to identify the roles played by the portions in boldface. You don't need to spend any time wondering whether the argument itself is good or not. Until jennpt gets back to you: 1. Someone says that X is Y. 2. The author says that X doesn't have the properties of Y. 3. The author says that therefore X is Z. This is not wrong. By eliminating Y, you automatically strengthen Z. No. As MartyTargetTestPrep mentioned, this is about what the author of the argument in the question thinks, not what you or anyone else thinks.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

The argument is fairly simple and the answer is non-debatable.

This is the role played by each individual statement of the argument:

Pueblo Bonito is a large, ancient building in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. - This is context. Tells you about Pueblo Bonito
Archaeologists and historians have long considered Pueblo Bonito the palatial residence of a chief or king. - Again, context. Tells you what archaeologists usually think about Pueblo Bonito.
 However, researchers have found very little evidence of the luxury goods that one would expect to find in a palace.  - A premise supporting the conclusion of the argument. It is data that is negating the commonly held belief, something the author is against.

Therefore, it is more likely that Pueblo Bonito was a religious center where special rituals were performed - the conclusion of the argument. It is what the author's opinion is. This is what the author wanted to say.

Please note that with two sides of a debate, there are two ways you can make your case stronger (not prove your case without doubt, mind you. Just make it stronger). 
You can support your own belief with relevant data such as "religious artefacts were found in an oddly decorated room of Pueblo Bonito" or you can provide counter argument to your opponent's belief such as "no luxury goods were found". Both make the opponent's position less likely and your position more likely. 
Say there was a 40% probability of it being a palatial residence and 60% of all others. With your data, now there is a 20% chance of it being a palatial residence. It increases the probability of all others, including the one you are suggesting.

The bold statement does support the main conclusion.

Also, note that there is no other possible option. 
Answer (E)

NRJ11090 · Answer

IMO E. Because the main conclusion of the argument is that "it is more likely that PB was a religious center where special rituals were performed". The boldface sentence provides evidence/reason to increase our belief in the main conclusion. Answer choice E states this in exactly correct manner. Hence, E

A- no claim is provided for the bold face sentence
B-No. It is not the main conclusion
C- It provided support for main conclusion
D-Boldface sentence is not proved false anywhere in the argument. In fact, it is used to support the conclusion.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Thank you my honorable experts  MartyTargetTestPrep ,  jennpt ,  AjiteshArun ,  VeritasKarishma  for supporting in my study!
I'm so sorry for bumping this discussion again-actually, I'm not convinced yet here! I'm going to explain whole the thing on my own understanding in CR.
In this boldface question:
Speaker says: Aha, no treasurer , so you (Archaeologists and historians) are wrong. If the "Archaeologists and historians" IS WRONG doesn't mean that the AUTHOR is right! Here, the total number of pieces of "evidence" the speaker/author actually gives for his/her conclusion is Zero.

This factual evidence can be 2 types, basically: 
 1) Anything supporting the author's side
2) Anything opposing the other side

The following problem is excerpt from Official Guide-2017 edition. 
 
 The correct choice is E

In the above example, the  bold part  clearly supports the speaker's (author) conclusion, because the factual evidence  (bold part-1)  and the author's conclusion are  not  independent idea;  they're in the SAME line . But, in the pueblo Bonito problem, the  bold part   and the author's conclusion  are totally two independent ideas! 
So, what's the logic that holds E true in Pueblo Bonito problem/question?
Thanks__

BrightOutlookJenn · Answer

AsadAbu

In the Chaco Canyon problem, if you disprove one proposed explanation for an observation, you open the door to a new proposed explanation. 
The boldface part doesn't directly prove this new explanation. However, it makes a new explanation more probable by disproving a competing explanation.

To use a metaphor - say I am running for mayor in my city. You, an independent person, find some very damaging information about my opponent, Mr. A, and release it to the public. Everyone reads this information and says, "oh no, that's terrible. Mr. A can't be mayor now!" You have, in effect, strengthened my candidacy, by eliminating my opponent. Note that you never said "Oh, jennpt would be a great mayor; let me tell you all her qualifications!" Rather, you gave evidence to eliminate my opponent. Eliminating my opponent strengthens me.

Now, to take that metaphor a little further, who do you think is most likely to go looking for negative information about candidates for political office? The competitors of those candidates (or the supporters of those competitors)! Because by eliminating the competition, they will strengthen their own chances ... without having to do the hard work of coming up with great compelling plans and reasons that would more directly support their own candidacy.

Does that help?

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Pueblo Bonito is a large, ancient building in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Pueblo Bonito is a large, ancient building in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards