Last visit was: 01 Sep 2026, 19:55 It is currently 01 Sep 2026, 19:55
Close
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

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
harshpurohit3700
Joined: 24 Sep 2024
Last visit: 29 Jan 2026
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
43
 [17]
Given Kudos: 13
Location: India
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.2
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Posts: 5
Kudos: 43
 [17]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
14
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bismuth83
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Sep 2024
Last visit: 01 Aug 2025
Posts: 708
Own Kudos:
3,603
 [7]
Given Kudos: 441
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 708
Kudos: 3,603
 [7]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Blackcrow1972
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 54
Own Kudos:
265
 [3]
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 54
Kudos: 265
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Blackcrow1972
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 54
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 54
Kudos: 265
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is my reasoning fine?
Rodriguez stated, "That period included some less dry decades." This does not mean that every less dry decade must still be "somewhat dry." A completely non-dry decade, such as 950–959, could still fall under the category of "less dry" compared to the extremely dry decades. Therefore, the existence of a decade that is not dry at all (according to the table) does not conclusively disprove Rodriguez's assertion
User avatar
Ab1313
Joined: 21 Dec 2016
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
7
 [2]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GPA: 2.8
Products:
Posts: 8
Kudos: 7
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
All periods had rainfall below average and as Dr. Rodriguez mentions "That period included some less dry decades but also at least four extremely dry decades" we can see from the table that there were 4 times when the rainfall was <70%, hence his assertions are correct based on the table.

Blackcrow1972
Is my reasoning fine?
Rodriguez stated, "That period included some less dry decades." This does not mean that every less dry decade must still be "somewhat dry." A completely non-dry decade, such as 950–959, could still fall under the category of "less dry" compared to the extremely dry decades. Therefore, the existence of a decade that is not dry at all (according to the table) does not conclusively disprove Rodriguez's assertion
User avatar
muskang2000
Joined: 22 Nov 2024
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 7
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q85 V79 DI76
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q85 V79 DI76
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
Posts: 36
Kudos: 11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For #1, it is useful to note that Table tab gives the following statement:
The table provides data about Xincua from 890 to 969. Note the following baseline data for the period 790–889: (1) mean duration of king's reign: 16.5 years; (2) mean annual rainfall: 380 millimeters.

The mean annual rainfall (baseline) is already 380 mm. Therefore, we can say that It provides some support for an assertion made by Rodriguez: That period included some less dry decades but also at least four extremely dry decades. Earlier I was not sure what threshold to consider for defining extremely dry decades but with the baseline in mind, we can reasonably say that the decades with rainfall in 200s (200, 210, 245, 260) are clearly extremely dry decades.
User avatar
SportEarth
Joined: 24 Jul 2026
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q84 V80 DI80
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q84 V80 DI80
Posts: 4
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For the third question, when we say that "impaired King's ability to rule", doesn't that support what Professor Ojukwu is saying?
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 113,017
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 111,247
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 113,017
Kudos: 838,465
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
SportEarth
For the third question, when we say that "impaired King's ability to rule", doesn't that support what Professor Ojukwu is saying?
Question 3:

It may sound like it supports Ojukwu, but the key is what caused what.

Choice C says the water shortage caused the political instability and impaired the kings’ ability to rule. That supports Rodriguez, who says drought was the primary cause.

Ojukwu argues the opposite: that political turmoil was the primary cause of the population decline. So C weakens his position.
Moderators:
Math Expert
113017 posts
DI Forum Moderator
410 posts