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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Want to score 90 percentile or higher on GMAT CR? Attend this free webinar to learn how to pre-think assumptions and solve the most challenging questions in less than 2 minutes.
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Jun 2012, 16:05
6
35
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
85% (hard)
Question Stats:
53% (02:06) correct 47% (02:06) wrong based on 1422 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.
(B) The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline.
(C) Typhus is generally fatal.
(D) Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer.
(E) Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Jun 2012, 20:43
1
Choice D is really the assumption of the argument. It defend the case that the tetracycline is exposed into ineffective form after processing through baker.
_________________
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Jul 2012, 01:21
2
such a tricky question Now, I think D is the correct one. Both A and D look correct, but what makes D the correct one, is the part that says "Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains..."
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Jul 2012, 20:29
3
Use negate technique for choice A: The tetracycline deposits FORMED after the bodies were buried.
If the tetracycline formed after the bodies were buried, this kind of antibiotic still did not relate to the tetracycline that produced by bacteria in beer and bread.
_________________
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Jul 2012, 10:56
3
1
Will vote for D because
Question type : Assumption (Strengthen the conclusion)
conclusion : tetracycline in food explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
Premise 1: skeletons do show deposits of tetracyclinean antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil.
Premise 2: This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread.
A. The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried. --> one of the premise already state that "skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease", so option A cannot be true
B. The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline. --> Out of scope nothing talking about another diseases
C. Typhus is generally fatal. --> Doesnot strengthe the conclusion.
D. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer. --> Provide additional evidence that will strength the conclusion. If the Tetracycline which acts as antibiotic is not destroyed in the process of making bread or beer, then we can correctly conclude that tetracycline in food probably explains the low incidence of typhus. Correct
using ANT Tetracycline is rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer. This clearly contradicts the conclusion, if Tetracycline doesnot act as antibiotic, then incidence of typhus would have been higher
E. Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline. --> wrong because thay cannot be only source as they were made from grains and bacterium flourished on the dried grain.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jul 2012, 12:04
3
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
So I chose (D), because it most directly speaks to the evidence in the argument, "tetracycline in their food...'. However, I do not know whether this would be a valid GMAT question. (A) also provides a perfectly reasonable assumption on which the argument depends. If the tetracycline entered bodies after those bodies had been buried, then clearly it was not responsible for preventing typhus.
In GMAT-land, I can't remember seeing an assumption question in which two answer choices are assumptions upon which the argument depends, but one of them speaks more directly to the text/conclusion. If this is valid, and it is simply slipping my mind as to ever having seen such a question, surely this question is a 700+. I'd be interested to see if anyone has encountered a similar question. If so, then this is definitely a valid question, and a toughie .
_________________
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Jul 2012, 19:18
1
ChrisLele wrote:
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
So I chose (D), because it most directly speaks to the evidence in the argument, "tetracycline in their food...'. However, I do not know whether this would be a valid GMAT question. (A) also provides a perfectly reasonable assumption on which the argument depends. If the tetracycline entered bodies after those bodies had been buried, then clearly it was not responsible for preventing typhus.
In GMAT-land, I can't remember seeing an assumption question in which two answer choices are assumptions upon which the argument depends, but one of them speaks more directly to the text/conclusion. If this is valid, and it is simply slipping my mind as to ever having seen such a question, surely this question is a 700+. I'd be interested to see if anyone has encountered a similar question. If so, then this is definitely a valid question, and a toughie .
ChrisLele The conclusion of this argument is "Tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians" as in the last sentence. This means that author expects food to be a reason for presence of Tetracycline. I understand that presence of tetracycline can be linked a defender kind of assumption, but we also know that tetracycline has always been there in Nubian soil, making me to go away from A, and the conclusion here should defend the low incidence of typhus( and not the presence of tetracycline on skeletons). Let me know if this sounds logical or even if there is some flaw here.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jan 2014, 10:00
3
IMO D
Because on negating A we get. The tetracycline deposits did form after the bodies were buried (Nothing told about scenario before bodies were buried). this implies two statements. 1) Tetracycline formed only after bodies were buried 2) Tetracycline formed both before and after bodies were buried
1 inverses the conclusion but 2nd does not inverse the conclusion.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Oct 2016, 06:20
This is a valid GMAT question. However, if the gmat gives such a question, it will not include both choices A and D in the same question, because both are correct.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Oct 2016, 17:45
It was a tricky question!, but a good one. I choose A at the beginning but I was wrong. Reading carefully the conclusion and the premises that support D makes more sense. First of all this is a causal argument: Conc: Tetra in food --> probably explains low incidence of Typhus P1: Skeletons of N show deposits of Tetra (antibiotic produced by a bacteria in N's soil) P2: Bacteria can flourish on the dried grain used for making N diet: beer and bread. P3: N inhabited an area with typhus, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show evidence of this disease
Pre-thinking: For a causal argument to be true: -No other causes provoke the effect -The effect doesn't cause the "cause" -The cause happened before the effect.
Option A) The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried. Incorrect This option is apparently aligned with the latter one (sequence of events); however, option A doesn't talk about the real cause mentioned in the conclusion and supported by premises: Tetra in food. We know (from premises) that Tetra was indeed present in N's diet. So this is a real fact. Option a provides irrelevant information because even if Tetra deposits formed after the bodies were buried, the few evidence of the disease in the skeletons could or could have not happened because of Tetra in food.
Option D) Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer. Correct If the Tetra in food had loose its properties as an antibiotic after it was processed to beer and bread, It would have been ineffective to prevent the disease. So the few evidence of the disease in the skeletons would have been attributed to other causes.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Jun 2017, 02:51
joshnsit wrote:
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
A. The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried. B. The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline. C. Typhus is generally fatal. D. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer. E. Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.
Facts: few of the skeletons of Nubians show the usual evidence of the disease typhus even though they inhabited an area in which typhus occurred,. But their skeletons show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread.
Missing Information:There is no alternate explanation to what is shown in bold or it is not falsified, such as Tetracycline being rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer.
Conclusion:Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
Choice D is the best match for the missing information.
Choice A seems very close. To eliminate one of the two, we have to focus on the reason for the conclusion. It is shown in bold. It means that the author believes that tetracycline was their in their food and this would eliminate A because choice A is more a premise. So actually attacking author's argument is showing tetracycline in the food is not responsible for the low incidence of the disease. So the assumption of D saying that the tetracycline in the food is effective, is required.
_________________
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Dec 2017, 10:31
Option A can be clearly eliminated because " The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil". This statement means that irrespective of the skeletons that show deposits of tetracycline, the bacterium found in the soil produces tetracycline. So, tetracycline is always found in the soil irrespective of the presence of the deposits that were formed after the body was buried or before the body was buried.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Dec 2017, 22:03
1
There is one more point, which makes A weak as an assumption. If tetracycline deposited from the soil into the skeletons of these bodies, it still does not explain why only "few of their skeletons showed the usual evidence of typhus. After all, the ancient nubians inhabited in the area where typhus occurred, making them more susceptible to the disease. Most of them would have incurred the disease when they were alive. Typhus would invade their bodies when they were alive.
_________________
Cheers, Varsha Madhav --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kudos please if my post helped you...!!
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Aug 2018, 06:00
We can rewrite basic logical steps as follow:(each step is an effect of preceeding step)
1)Nubians lived where typhus occurred 2)Skeletons show few of them got affected 3)Skeletons have deposits of antibiotic 4)Bacterium produce antibiotic 5)Bacterium grows on grain 6)Grain is used to make staple food 7)Staple food has antibiotic That's why typhus didn't affect many Nubians
We can see that only one answer choice, D, attacks this logical sequence.
To arrive from step 5 to step 7, we need an assumption mentioned in choice D
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Sep 2018, 07:25
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.
(B) The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline.
(C) Typhus is generally fatal.
(D) Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer.
(E) Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.
negating the main-point: 1. TT is not the reason for low traces of TY given that a) TY is common disease b) TT found in staple food and is Anti-biotic to TY
pre-think: 1. what if Ty is not affected by TT because of something 2. what if Ty is not properly captured due to poor tech 3. what if some other pathogen has reduced the Ty after death
look at the options: (A) The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried. even if TT came after burial, it could react to Ty and decrease it. hence loose end. incorrect
(B) The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline. discussion about other dieseases is irrelevant.hence incorrect
(C) Typhus is generally fatal. it doesnot provide any clue !!.
(D) Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer. if TT is ineffective, it cannot kill Ty. hence it cannot be the reason of low traces of Ty. hence correct
(E) Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline. even if bread and beer were not the only food source of TT, it doesnot imply anything at all!.
Re: The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Jun 2019, 20:14
Hi,
I would like to add to the reasoning to opt out option A: This option strengthens our conclusion. And negating this also weakens our belief in the argument. But the argument does not break down. Why? Because here we are just mentioning that deposits were made after burial. But did these depositions lead to low incidence of typhus? We don't know. We only know that there might be a possibility but this cause does not alter the other cause of the argument.
Basically, the causality is not shaken in presence of this cause.
One important point to note here is that, Option A talks about a cause which indeed weakens our conclusion when negated but does not break down the conclusion. Why? Because we do not know that those traces caused low incidence of typhus.
A similar real-world analogy we could give is:
So many sixes by Virat in the last game probably explains India's comfortable Victory.
This argument is not broken down if we say, though it will weaken our belief in the above claim: Dhoni hit 3 sixes in last over and we won the match.
This I say because what if due to Virat's sixes we were already comfortable and Dhoni just finished off the game in his style!!
So it's very much important to note that the cause will lead to the effect and it is very important to differentiate between weaken and break down.
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
Show Tags
15 Oct 2019, 23:42
ChrisLele wrote:
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
So I chose (D), because it most directly speaks to the evidence in the argument, "tetracycline in their food...'. However, I do not know whether this would be a valid GMAT question. (A) also provides a perfectly reasonable assumption on which the argument depends. If the tetracycline entered bodies after those bodies had been buried, then clearly it was not responsible for preventing typhus.
In GMAT-land, I can't remember seeing an assumption question in which two answer choices are assumptions upon which the argument depends, but one of them speaks more directly to the text/conclusion. If this is valid, and it is simply slipping my mind as to ever having seen such a question, surely this question is a 700+. I'd be interested to see if anyone has encountered a similar question. If so, then this is definitely a valid question, and a toughie .
I think it is very logical. The fact that deposits of tetracycline may have formed after a person was buried, does not mean that it is impossible for there to be a causal relationship between the food and the disease. Whereas if D were true, it would definitely not be possible.
gmatclubot
The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet su
[#permalink]
15 Oct 2019, 23:42
close
53% (02:06) correct 
.
