Samples from a ceramic vase found at a tomb in Sicily prove that the

The vase was manufactured in Greece.
It was found in Sicily at a tomb which was made 2700 yrs ago.

Conclusion: There was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago.

What are we assuming here? That the vase was not placed there in Sicily many years later by someone. What if 1000 years ago, a descendent of the Sicilian occupant placed that vase there? Perhaps there was no trade 2700 years ago between Sicily and Greece but it started 1500 years ago.

Hence (D) is an assumption.

(A) Sicilian potters who lived during the reign of the ruler did not produce work of the same level of quality as did Greek potters.

Irrelevant. We are given that the vase was made in Greece. That is not under inspection at all.

(B) Sicilian clay that was used in the manufacture of pottery during the ruler's reign bore little resemblance to Greek clay used to manufacture pottery at that time.

Again irrelevant. Same logic as above.

(C) At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there were ships capable of transporting large quantities of manufactured goods between Sicily and Greece.

We don't need ships capable of transporting large quantities. Trade could have been in the form of traders travelling etc.

(E) The occupant of the tomb was not a member of the royal family to which the Sicilian ruler belonged.

Irrelevant.

(D) The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was not placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.

Premise:
1) Ceramic vase found in Sicilian tomb
2) Vase manufactured in Greece
3) Occupant of tomb died during reign of Sicilian ruler some 2700 years ago

Conclusion:
4) There is trade between Sicily and Greece 2700 years ago.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Can't really tie in with the conclusion

(B) Same problem as A

(C) Doesn't mean there's trade between Greece and Sicily

(D) The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was not placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.

(E) Irrelevant

I'll go with D. If the vase was not placed there generations later, then it must have come from Greece 2700 years back.

To draw the conclusion we must have to assume that there are no other mean through which vase has reached to sisly.

D is the perfect example of this. So answer is D

Was solving this question yesterday, and got stuck between C and D.

I feel that the reason why C is not correct is because it just limits the mode of transport to “ships” and “large quantities of manufactured goods”. So, even if we negate C (which means that ships were “not” available to transport “large quantities of manufactured goods”), still conclusion is intact (trade between Sicily and Greece is possible through, say, ships that are capable of even transporting “small quantities of manufactured goods”; after all, there is not much of a “heavy transport” required to transport few ceramic vases).

So, C was this, then I believe it could have been correct: At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there was some way of transporting goods between Sicily and Greece.

On the other hand, if we negate D, then we cannot reach the conclusion at all.

Basically, the main point to think for this question is similar to a crime scene situation, as follows,

if we found any evidence for a crime at the crime scene after some days of the crime, suppose, so the correct assumption should be that the evidence was NOT planted afterwards when the crime had already occured.

This same strategy is used in the Question above.

so, the answer for your question from Veritas is A?

Also, I think moderators here do not like a question in a topic for another question.

The conclusion is :- Since the occupant of the tomb died during the reign of a Sicilian ruler who lived 2,700 years ago, the location of the vase indicates that there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago.

Negate option C ,
At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there were NO ship capable of transporting large quantities of manufactured goods between Sicily and Greece.

Still the conclusion follows because even though there were NO ship capable of transporting large quantities of goods , still there can be ships capable of transporting small quantities of goods such as vase.
So the conclusion follows that there was trade between Sicily and Greece.
Conclusion follows after negating statement.
C ant be the assumption.

Negate option D,
The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.
Then the conclusion can not follow. Then the vase can t be the indicator that there was trade between Sicily and Greece .
2700 years ago.

The conclusion cant follow after negating the statement.
D is the assumption.

Please give me kudo s if you liked my explanation.

Answer choice D, if negated, would say something like.. Meteors strike in certain places more often than other places in the world. This negation completely destroys the conclusion because it offers an alternative explanation to why craters are clumped together.

Very very true !!!!

IMHO, this is a perfect example of a Passive assumption which eGMAT teaches...
_________________

The argument is that the vase was manufactured in Greece, not Sicily.
This is based on evidence that the occupant of the tomb died during the reign of the Sicilian ruler who lived 2700 years ago; thus, the timing of the death and location of the trade indicate that there was a trade between Sicily and Greece 2700 years ago.

We are asked to identify an assumption upon which the argument depends - a statement that must be true in order for the argument to be true.
A is incorrect because for all we know there were no potters and all vases were imported. This does not need to be assumed to make the argument.
B is incorrect because even if the clay resembles Greece's it still doesn't negate the fact some Vases were imported from Greece during Italian-Greek trade times.
C is incorrect - for all we know transport could have been by land.
D is correct - this needs to be true. If someone placed the vase in the tomb generations after then obviously we cannot conclude that the vase was the product of Italian- Greek trade.
E is incorrect because even if he was a member this does not impact the argument that deals with the source of the vase.

Greece vase found in Sicily
2700 years ago died occupant of the tomb
Assumption
Conclusion: There was trade

Assumptions: someone painted it ot someone put it there later
Choice (A) DID NOT Produce - Wrong
So, correct answer - (D)

Can you please help me in understanding the reasoning of the author?

Hi Eka

Let us break the stimulus down into the conclusion and the premises on which the conclusion is based.

Conclusion: "...there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago."

Premises (on which the conclusion is based):

1) Samples from a ceramic vase found at a tomb in Sicily show that the vase was made in Greece.
2) The occupant of the tomb died during the reign of a Sicilian ruler who lived 2700 years ago --> it is fair to assume that the occupant of the tomb died approx. 2700 years ago.

As per the author, (1) & (2) above lead to the conclusion that there was trade between Greece and Sicily 2700 years ago, since a Greek manufactured item was found in a 2700 year old tomb in Sicily.

Clearly, to arrive at this conclusion, it is necessary to assume that the Greek item was placed at the time the tomb was made and not at a later date, since if the item was placed at a later date (say, 2500 years ago), we can only conclusively say that there was trade between Greece and Sicily 2500 years ago while being unable to state anything conclusive about trade between the two regions 2700 years ago. The only option that states this is (D).

Hope this helps.
_________________

The answer is (D), but this is not showing any relation b/w the vase and its made in Greece relation. It just say's that a vase was not replaced by anyone after the tomb was captured.

Hi Lakshya

Let us analyze the conclusion: "...there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago". Please note that the conclusion is not only about place (Greece and Sicily) but also the time (2700 years ago).

The premises on which this conclusion is based:

1) Samples from a ceramic vase found at a tomb in Sicily prove that the vase was manufactured in Greece.
2) ...the occupant of the tomb died during the reign of a Sicilian ruler who lived 2,700 years ago.

Therefore, the vase proves it was made in Greece and the tomb in Sicily is 2700 years old. Hence, there was trade between Sicily and Greece at the time. Clearly, there can be other explanations for both put together.

Option (D) states one such - that the vase could have been put in the grave at a later date - and rules it out. It does not connect the vase to Greece but rules out an alternative explanation for the vase being found in the grave, thereby making the case for the timing (2700 years ago) stronger.

Hope this helps.
_________________

VeritasKarishma Mam Kindly explain this question

My take D, otherwise the conclusion will fall apart.

VeritasKarishma egmat GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo
Could you please explain how to negate option B?
I wonder if it should be "bore no resemblance" or "bore resemblance".
Thanks for your help.