Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
20 Sep 2022, 10:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
jabhatta2
At the very minimum, can't we say that the book wasn't written before 1165, since the book describes events that "occurred in 1165"? I mean, unless the author was psychic, or has specific foreknowledge, or wrote about events and then caused those events -- theoretically possible, but totally unfounded in the argument -- the description had to come after the events being described.
avigutman
Expert
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert reply
20 Sep 2022, 11:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
jabhatta2
Yes, jabhatta2, it's the latter. But, as AnthonyRitz explained, it's irrelevant. I mean, how would you react if you found a text that appears to have been written in 1910, that describes in detail the events of World War II? The text itself doesn't say that these events took place in 1939-1945, but we all know that they did. Wouldn't you question how a 1910 text could possibly describe events that hadn't yet happened? Does it really matter whether the text itself mentions the years 1939-1945?
Take another look at the beginning of the argument:
Quote:
What was your reaction, when you took a pause at that point? Did you not infer that the text must have been written no earlier than the year 1165? If not, that was your first mistake.
21 Sep 2022, 05:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi avigutman AnthonyRitz - thank you so much for your inputs.
What both of you said in the posts just above make sense. - the book was definitely written AFTER 1165 (that cannot be disputable) - I did not make that inference. I understand the logic for this now
The only thing questionable is : was the text written PRIOR to 1167
While we are only left with (c) so we have to pick (c) -- however, would you agree on these inputs on (C) ?
-- Traditionally most GMAT assumptions are necessary assumptions. (C) seems to go over-board
Here is why :
(C) is is suggesting two things
(i) mom / dad / brother / sisters /grandmom / grand-dad / grand-mom / great grand mom / great grand-father / children / wives / cousins = EVERYONE IS ALL listed accurately.
(ii) LIVING / Deceased STATUS of EACH ONE is listed accurately as well.
(C) is suggesting both the above bullet points.
However, I think only DAD and the living /deceased status of DAD specifically is necessary for this argument.
If mom / brother / sister /grandmom .... is listed incorrectly and THE LIVING STATUS of mom / brother / sister / grandmom is listed in-accurately as well --- it doesnt hurt the argument.
Thoughts ?
What both of you said in the posts just above make sense. - the book was definitely written AFTER 1165 (that cannot be disputable) - I did not make that inference. I understand the logic for this now
The only thing questionable is : was the text written PRIOR to 1167
While we are only left with (c) so we have to pick (c) -- however, would you agree on these inputs on (C) ?
-- Traditionally most GMAT assumptions are necessary assumptions. (C) seems to go over-board
Here is why :
(C) is is suggesting two things
(i) mom / dad / brother / sisters /grandmom / grand-dad / grand-mom / great grand mom / great grand-father / children / wives / cousins = EVERYONE IS ALL listed accurately.
(ii) LIVING / Deceased STATUS of EACH ONE is listed accurately as well.
(C) is suggesting both the above bullet points.
However, I think only DAD and the living /deceased status of DAD specifically is necessary for this argument.
If mom / brother / sister /grandmom .... is listed incorrectly and THE LIVING STATUS of mom / brother / sister / grandmom is listed in-accurately as well --- it doesnt hurt the argument.
Thoughts ?
