Archaeologists hypothesize that an eleventh-century Byzantine church

Question

Archaeologists hypothesize that an eleventh-century Byzantine church in what is now Turkey was constructed in two distinct sections, separated by decades. They analyzed pigments from frescoes painted on walls in the two sections and confirmed the presence of different mineral compounds in each section's pigments. Additionally, the relatively rare ultramarine violet appears in only one section.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists' hypothesis?

A) Whether stylistic differences indicate that in any other Byzantine church two sections were painted by different painters

B) Whether the paint pigments found in the section of the church thought to have been built later were still in use one or more centuries after the time at which the church is thought to have been built

C) Whether ultramarine violet was commonly used in the region where the church is located

D) Whether the mineral compounds found in the pigments in the church occurred naturally in the region where it is located

E) Whether eleventh-century Byzantine churches typically were decorated at or around the time of their construction

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Archaeologists hypothesize that an eleventh-century Byzantine church in what is now Turkey was constructed in two distinct sections, separated by decades. They analyzed pigments from frescoes painted on walls in the two sections and confirmed the presence of different mineral compounds in each section's pigments. Additionally, the relatively rare ultramarine violet appears in only one section.Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists' hypothesis?

The archaeologists' hypothesis, basically the conclusion of the argument, is the following:

an eleventh-century Byzantine church in what is now Turkey was constructed in two distinct sections, separated by decades

The support for the hypothesis is the following:

the presence of different mineral compounds in each section's pigments

the relatively rare ultramarine violet appears in only one section

We see that the archaeologists have reasoned that, since the pigments used in decorating the two sections are different in key ways, the sections were constructed at different times.

Simply put, the archeologists have reasoned that different pigments are connected to different times of construction.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists' hypothesis?

This is an Evaluate question, and the correct answer will be the one such that different answers to the question is presents will weaken or strengthen the case for the hypothesis.

A) Whether stylistic differences indicate that in any other Byzantine church two sections were painted by different painters

To me, this choice is the trickiest one since I wonder whether it helps with determining whether the sections were painted at different times or by different painters.

At the same time, we can eliminate this choice for a few reasons.

One is that different painters and different times are not mutually exclusive or necessarily connected. After all, the sections of the church could have been painted by different painters at the same time, or by different painters at different times. So, even if we knew for sure whether the sections of the church in question were painted by different painters, we still would not know whether they were painted at different times.

Another clue that this choice is incorrect is that it mentions "stylistic differences" rather than differences in pigments. If we think about it, we don't really know that there were "stylistic differences" between the ways the two sections were painted. It could be that they were painted in the same style with pigments that differed in composition but not in stylistic effect.

In addition, this choice is about "any other Byzantine church." So, the answer doesn't clearly indicate whether different painters painted this church. After all, of course, it's likely that in many cases in the world, differrent painters painted different sections of one building in different styles. OK, great, but what about here?

Finally, choice (E) clearly makes or breaks the argument. So, if we have any doubts about which choice to choose, we can safely choose (E) over this one.

Eliminate.

B) Whether the paint pigments found in the section of the church thought to have been built later were still in use one or more centuries after the time at which the church is thought to have been built

This choice is tricky since it does involve time, in that it's about whether the pigments were in use "centuries after the time at which the church is thought to have been built."

At the same time, if we consider this choice carefully, we see that information on whether the pigments were still in use centuries later doesn't indicate when the pigments were used to decorate this church. After all, information on whether the pigments were used after the church was built does not indicate when the church was painted or built.

The two facts have basically no connection.

Eliminate.

C) Whether ultramarine violet was commonly used in the region where the church is located

The answer to this question does not help with evaluating the argument.

After all, information on whether ultramarine violet was commonly used does not  indicate when it was used.

So, the fact that it was or was not commonly used would not help with determining whether the sections were constructed decades apart.

Eliminate.

D) Whether the mineral compounds found in the pigments in the church occurred naturally in the region where it is located

Regardless of whether the mineral compounds occurred naturally in the region in which the church is located, they may or may not have been used at different times.

After all, someone could have found and used the mineral compounds at the same time or at different times regardless of where the minerals were found.

So, the answers to this question have no effect on the case for the hypothesis.

Eliminate.

E) Whether eleventh-century Byzantine churches typically were decorated at or around the time of their construction

The answers to this question make or break the argument.

After all, the support for the hypthesis that the two sections were constructed decades apart is that the two sections are decorated differently. So, basically, the researchers have assumed that decoration is connected to time of construction.

So, if the answer to this question is no, eleventh-century Byzantine churches typically were NOT decorated at or around the time of their construction, then the argument is wrecked.

After all, in that case, the fact that the pigments are different in the two section likely means nothing about when the two sections were constructed since the pigments likely would not have been used at the time of construction anyway. In short, a no answer to this question indicates that there's likely no connection between pigments and time of construction. So, a no answer makes the support for the hypothesis very weak.

On the other hand, if the answer to this question is yes, eleventh-century Byzantine churches typically WERE decorated at or around the time of their construction, then the argument is a little stronger. After all, that information helps to confirm that there is a connection between the pigments used to decorate the sections and the times of construction of the two sections.

So, the answer to this question would be useful in evaluating the archaeologists' hypothesis.

Keep.

Correct answer:  E

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB  Can you please discuss this question ?
I was not fully convinced by E. All the options are quite subtle. I was in two minds between B and E. Does this question require knowledge from the outside world ?

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 · Answer

chetan2u  Would you like to discuss this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray  Don't you think we are making a mild assumption here that fresco s were created to decorate the chruches ?

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray · Answer

Not really.

Here's what a fresco is:

A fresco is  a type of wall painting . The term comes from the Italian word for fresh because plaster is applied to the walls while still wet.

We see that, by definition, a fresco is a form of decoration of walls or ceilings.

sayan640 · Answer

Thank you  marty  , you are just awesome..

Blackcrow1972 · Answer

The archaeologists hypothesize that the church was built in two distinct sections, separated by decades. This hypothesis is based on the differences in pigments used in frescoes in each section.

A key assumption behind their hypothesis is timing—they assume that frescoes were painted shortly after each section was constructed. If this assumption is false, the differences in pigments might not indicate a time gap in construction but rather a time gap in when the frescoes were painted, unrelated to when the sections were built.

For example:

If frescoes were routinely painted many years or even decades after construction, the differences in pigments might reflect changes in materials over time rather than differences in the timing of the church's construction.

Azakura16 · Answer

Premise: Archaeologists analyzed pigments from frescoes painted on walls in two sections of an eleventh-century Byzantine church.
Premise: During the analysis, they found different mineral compounds in each section’s pigments.
Premise: The relatively rare ultramarine violet appears in only one section.
Conclusion: The archaeologists think that the church was constructed in two distinct sections, separated by decades.

A. This is irrelevant. Whether they were painted by two different painters or not doesn’t matter. We care about the construction timeline.
B. This is tempting, but what we need to establish is whether the frescoes were painted at the same time the construction occurred. Even if painters could have used some pigments later, the frescoes could still have been painted at the time of construction or another time.
C. Irrelevant. We already know the pigment is rare, and also that it’s present in the church.
D. Irrelevant. Where the pigments come from does not matter when establishing the timeline. 
E. This would be helpful to know. If the churches weren’t typically decorated at or around their time of construction, using the frescoes to support a hypothesis that the church was constructed in two distinct sections, decades apart, doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Best answer is E.

Raman109 · Answer

Archaeologists hypothesize that an eleventh-century Byzantine church in what is now Turkey was constructed in two distinct sections, separated by decades. - Conclusion.

They analyzed pigments from frescoes painted on walls in the two sections and confirmed the presence of different mineral compounds in each section's pigments. - Paint at 2 different locations have different pigments. The underlying assumption is that paint is done at the time of the construction, so paint and the timing of construction are linked. But it may not be true, may be painting was 30 years later.

Additionally, the relatively rare ultramarine violet appears in only one section. - Further strength to the hypothesis.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists' hypothesis?

A) Whether stylistic differences indicate that in any other Byzantine church two sections were painted by different painters - "stylistic differences" are out of scope.

B) Whether the paint pigments found in the section of the church thought to have been built later were still in use one or more centuries after the time at which the church is thought to have been built - "centuries" is out of scope. The argument talk about decades.

C) Whether ultramarine violet was commonly used in the region where the church is located - Weather it was commonly used or not still doesn't attack the assumption of tying pigment and the time of construction.

D) Whether the mineral compounds found in the pigments in the church occurred naturally in the region where it is located - out of scope.

E) Whether eleventh-century Byzantine churches typically were decorated at or around the time of their construction - Yes, answer means that the hypothesis is correct and No will mean the hypothesis is incorrect.

Pranavsawant · Answer

I mean this involves knowing the literal definition of a fresco. Not a very CR-esque question. It you don't make the connection that frescoes are used for decorative purposes, none of the answers make sense. In fact, while reading the excerpt, it never even remotely occured to me that painting walls is a decorative effect.

Legallyblond · Answer

Can we directly assume painting as decorating? that confused me and thats why i went with B

miag · Answer

Hi, 
You are not required to assume: decoration being discussed is explicitly frescoes painted on the walls. Frescoes are a form of church decoration.

I would suggest adding such words to your vocab dictionary to revise later..

Hope this helps!

GMATQuizMaster · Answer

Adding to the valuable discussion:

It is understandable to have this confusion if you do not know the exact meaning of the word "fresco," and at times other unfamiliar words may trip you up in similar ways. What helps in such questions is:

Reading carefully  - When you read "frescoes painted on walls" in the passage, you can interpret it as something specific painted on the wall. If you read carefully—which you should, especially since you do not know what frescoes are—you will not confuse it with usual wall paint.
 
  Eliminating each choice for a solid reason  - If you have eliminated choices A to D for solid reasons, you will be more careful while evaluating choice E.
 
  Looking for connections  - When choice E mentions "decorations" and you think "not mentioned directly," ask yourself: Is there anything that could be related to decorations? Perhaps frescoes (something specific painted on the wall).
  
Usually CR questions will not test your vocabulary, but if any question does require understanding an unfamiliar term, context and careful reading will help you work through it.

Dream009 · Answer

How are you supposed to think all this in 2 mins ??

GMATQuizMaster · Answer

Great question! The answer to your question is- You don't really need to think all this - it will come to you intuitively with the right foundation.
 
Just think about it -  When you first learned to read, you had to sound out each letter, then each word. Now, you read entire sentences instantly and understand meaning without thinking about individual letters.

The same principle applies to GMAT CR.  Right now, the process feels overwhelming because you are (or may be you are not!) consciously thinking through each step. But with consistent, deliberate practice, your brain will start recognizing patterns automatically.

The key skill you are building is comprehension-  understanding what the passage is actually saying in about 60-90 seconds on an average. This is a background skill that develops gradually with deliberate practice, starting with easier questions.

Good luck!

Archaeologists hypothesize that an eleventh-century Byzantine church

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

Archaeologists hypothesize that an eleventh-century Byzantine church

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