Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth centu

The passage tells us, that in SOME documents during the 15th century titanium has been detected, but far from all...so far two total.

therefore a map which contains this element can be included among the 15th century work.

The flaw is taking one exception and extending it to be concidered the norm.

I honestly do not understand A although something in it makes me want to chose the answer.

The only other one is C which states that the absence or presence of one element cannot determine the date and location of a document.

I too believe it's A.

The author uses the evidence of presence of Titanium to buttress his argument that B36 was printed by Gutenberg

- since Gutenberg's bible contained Titanium AND B36 also showed Titanium ---> hence author says Gutenberg printed B36 -

Thus the author creates exclusivity vis-a-vis titanium usage simply for the sake of justifying his argument ---- There's no reason to believe why - if titanium is accepted as having been used - could any one else not have printed the B36 using the same Titanium in the ink

Similary the author extends the argument that Vinland maps were published in the fifteenth century because use of titanium in the fifteenth century has been established through Gutenberg's bible episode.

IMO D, such long passage seems easier for me to reach the best answer
The argument is: the finding of titanium in ink before 16 century help:
- Identify the printer identification of B36: Gutenberg
- Identify the date of the Vinland map precisely with no doubt anymore: 15 century

To weaken: prove that regardless of the presence of titanium in the 's ink, we can still identify the identification of printer of B36 and the publish date of Vinland map precisely

Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth century did not contain titanium. However, a new type of analysis detected titanium in the ink of the famous Bible printed by Johannes Gutenberg and in that of another fifteenth-century Bible known as B-36, though not in the ink of any of numerous other fifteenth-century books analyzed. This finding is of great significance, since it not only strongly supports the hypothesis that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg but also shows that the presence of titanium in the ink of the purportedly fifteenth century Vinland Map can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map’s authenticity.
The reasoning in the passage is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that
(A) the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted --> irrelevant
(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not -->out of scope
(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document -->not strong enough to weaken
(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known -->the best. The bold face indicates that regardless of the presence of titanium, B36 and Vinland map can prove their worthness of their own
(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible -->irrelevant

I vote C. the passage infers that B-36 was printed by gutenberg simply because it had titanium in the ink, where that ink was also used in the vinland map. The map could have been forged in the seventeenth century using titanium-rich ink just as easily as it could have been in the fifteenth. I think the major criticism there is the lack of evidence, it claims that the titanium in the vinland map can no longer be a cause of doubt of its authenticity, and that the titanium "strongly" supports the hypothesis that B-36 was printed by gutenberg, but both of these claims are too much of a stretch "solely" on the presence of titanium in the ink, there must be other factors.

A) it does not really claim that the ink was or was not restricted, it could easily be interpreted that titanium just wasn't around to make the superior ink used in the sixteenth century on.

B) completely irrelevant, the evidence that supports the claims the stimulus makes does not involve the author's/artist's knowledge of what is in his/her ink.

D) equally irrelevant, claim never made.

E) sort of true, but doesn't really criticize the argument made. If the discovery was made after that of the gutenberg bible, then the last statement would be false, but the evidence could still not be used as a reason for doubting its authenticity, whether it be discovered ten years later or before, but the no longer would still stand corrected. I like C better tho.

hello guys

I liked that question, but I do not agree with the OA.

Issue: in only two books were found titanium
Argument: they were printed by the same printer

It is flawed because we cannot infer just because one element is in two books (and no other was found) that they were printed by the same person.

C

someone else?

I would go with A. Here's my reasoning:

(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not ---->The argument never talks about whether the artists were aware of titanium being an ingredient of the ink or not. It focuses on the fact whether titanium was common in the paints of that era or not. Out of Scope

(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known ---->Again, we don't care about whether the objects can be appreciated or not. Out of Scope

(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible ---->Yes, it does seem from the argument that titanium was discovered in the ink of the Vinland map before it was found in the two Bibles. But this is not what we are debating. Out of Scope

I was confused between A and C and I went with A. I discarded C as follows.

(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document ---->The author never says that the Vinland map is from the 15th century just because titanium was discovered in the ink. Rather, it can be inferred from the argument that the discovery of titanium in the ink of the map had cast a doubt on it's authenticity when all the other clues might have been pointing to the fact that it was made in the 15th century. So, C is wrong

Which leaves only A which must be correct.

Please let me know the OA.

My vote for A.
Its between A and C. Eshan has already given crisp explain for the options. So will just share my reasoning for A and C.

Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth century did not contain titanium. However, a new type of analysis detected titanium
1: in the ink of the famous Bible printed by Johannes Gutenberg and
2: in that of another fifteenth century Bible known as B-36, though not in the ink of any of numerous other fifteenth-century books analyzed.
This finding is of great significance, since it not only strongly supports the hypothesis that
1: B-36 was printed by Gutenberg but also shows that [2 items r linked to JG based upon usage of T based ink.This assumes that usage of ink was restricted]
2: the presence of titanium in the ink of the purportedly fifteenth century Vinland Map can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map’s authenticity.[Note this doesn't link to JG but assumes that usage of ink was not restricted.]

The reasoning in the passage is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that
(A) the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted
>>Correct as explained above.
(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document
>> C is too general must not always be true to raise doubt on the arg.Second, as per the argument only doubt regarding the date has been fixed. The date hasn't been determined in the arg.

I got the right answer by POE. See, how?

(A) the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted--> Don't understand exactly. So, hold it.

(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not--> knowledge of the printers or artists is not discussed here. So, it is out of scope.

(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document--> Determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing is not main concern here. So, out.

(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known--> The argument does not talk about appreciation of the documents. So. out.

(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible--> Relative time frame is not the focus of the argument. So, out.

Therefore, answer would be A.

I fail to understand why the answer is choice (A) and why not (D). Please help.

Passage tells you : Titanium not used before 16th century. Analysis tells: 1) Bible by Gutenberg contains titanium. 2) B-36 from 15th century contains titanium. 3) Presence of titanium can't be used as evidence to tell that Vinland map didn't belong to 15th century.

Author's conclusion: From (1) & (2) he tells that --> B-36 was written by Gutenberg since Titanium was used only by Gutenberg. (Conclusion A: Restricted usage of titanium by Gutenberg)

From (2) & (3) --> Since Vinland maps had titanium it was doubted if it belonged to 15th century since 15th century books dint have titanium(as given in the 1st line of the passage). B-36 belongs to 15th century and it had titanium. So 15th century used titanium in ink. So presence of titanium in Vinland maps can't be used as a reason to doubt if it belonged to the 15th century. (Conclusion B: Titanium was not only by used by Gutenberg but also someone used it in printing vinland maps. Thus usage wasn't restricted)

My Explanation : From Conclusion A and Conclusion B, we can tell that author has arrived to his conclusions by both restricting the usage of titanium and not restricting the usage of titanium which can be a flaw to his reasoning. How can he change the variable value and arrive in his conclusions. (For ex: using X="Restricted usage of titanium" for equation (1) and (2) and using X="Not restricted usage of titanium" in equation (2) and (3))

The question is "The reasoning in the passage is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that" - FIND A FLAW IN THE REASONING AND NOT TO STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN HIS CONCLUSIONS. (For ex: "If you eat XYZ food, you will feel sad and thus you will gain weight" and you are asked to find flaw in this reasoning, you should either prove "eating XYZ doesn't result in feeling sad" or "feeling sad doesn't result in gaining weight" and NOT proving that "eating XYZ wont make me gain weight")

(A) the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted -- This falls in line with my explanation.

(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not -- doesn't matter if they knew about it or not. They used it in 15th century. Vinland Maps and B-36 has it. Still doesn't bring criticism to author's reasoning.

(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document -- "Date of a document" here can only refer to Vinland Maps in this passage. Author didn't SUPPOSE that "Presence of titanium proves that Vinland maps belong to 15th century", he said that "Presence of titanium can't be used as a doubt that if Vinland Map belonged to 15th century"

(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known -- Author didn't link merits of these objects with "Gutenbery" or them belonging to 15th century. This option will only weaken Author's reasoning if he had linked "Merits" to "date of creation" and "Gutenberg" which he clearly din't in this passage.

(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible -- doesn't matter which was discovered first. The author gives his reasoning after all three discoveries have been made. Doesn't matter which variable is assigned the value first.

Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth century did not contain titanium.
However, titanium was found in the ink of the famous Bible printed by Johannes Gutenberg and in that of another fifteenth-century Bible known as B-36
Though it was not in the ink of any of numerous other fifteenth-century books analyzed.

This finding supports the hypothesis that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg (since the other Bible of Gutenberg used titanium ink) and also that Vinland Map of 15th century with Titanium ink can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map's authenticity.

Now, here is something odd. We are supporting that ink containing Titanium found in a Bible printed by Gutenberg implies that B-36 was also printed by Gutenberg (implying extremely restricted use of Titanium ink, perhaps by Gutenberg alone)
and also saying that Vinland map must be printed in 15th century only (implying unrestricted use of Titanium ink)
This is our option (A) and is certainly a criticism of the reasoning.

(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not

Irrelevant. We don't care whether the artists knew.

(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document's printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document

Not necessary as criticism. Say a unique chemical is created in the lab in the 20th century with 20th century technology. If found in any document's ink, that document is bound to be printed in the 20th century only.

(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known

Irrelevant. The argument does not debate the merit of the objects.

(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible

Quite possibly true. But this is no criticism of the argument's reasoning. It is implied by the argument when it says "fifteenth century Vinland Map can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map's authenticity" implying that at some time it was regarded as a reason for doubting the map's authenticity. So titanium was probably discovered in its ink before it was discovered in the ink of the Bibles using the new type of analysis.

Answer (A)

I got the right answer by POE. See, how?

(A) the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted--> Don't understand exactly. So, hold it.

(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not--> knowledge of the printers or artists is not discussed here. So, it is out of scope.

(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document--> Determination of the date and location of a document’s printing or drawing is not main concern here. So, out.

(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known--> The argument does not talk about appreciation of the documents. So. out.

(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible--> Relative time frame is not the focus of the argument. So, out.

Therefore, answer would be A.

FLAW IN REASONING

I like this question.


Pre-thinking: It is important to note that the author's conclusion is a long one and involves two different things.

First, that " the finding strongly supports the hypothesis that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg"

Second, that "that the presence of titanium in the ink of the purportedly fifteenth century Vinland Map can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map's authenticity".

Only after we understand this double-sided conclusion, we can fully understand the answer.


(A) the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted --------- CORRECT. The first part of the author's conclusion is made based on the interpretation that the use of titanium before the 16th century was EXTREMELY LIMITED. Only that can explain the first part of the author's conclusion: that the Gutenberg's bible and the B36 were both produced by Gutenberg. The author is thinking: "Since the use of titanium was so uncommon back in the day, probably only Gutenberg used it in his press. Therefore, the B36 must have been produced by him as well". ON THE OTHER HAND, to come up with the second part of his conclusion, the author interprets that titanium was of common usage back in the day, in total contradiction with the aforementioned explanation. Only that could explain why he says that "we can't deny the map's authenticity". In this case the author is thinking: "Titanium was common back in the day. Therefore, finding titanium in the map can't be a reason to doubt its age."


(B) if the technology that makes it possible to detect titanium in printing ink has only recently become available, it is unlikely that printers or artists in the fifteenth century would know whether their ink contained titanium or not --------- Whether printers in the 15th century knowingly put titanium in their prints is not up to debate.


(C) it is unreasonable to suppose that determination of the date and location of a document's printing or drawing can be made solely on the basis of the presence or absence of a single element in the ink used in the document ---------- This would work if the author WERE ASSURING in his conclusion that the map is from the 15th century. However, this is not the case. The author never mentions that the traces of titanium in the map are enough proof to say that it is from such an age.


(D) both the B-36 Bible and the Vinland Map are objects that can be appreciated on their own merits whether or not the precise date of their creation or the identity of the person who made them is known ----------- Totally out of scope. Does not refer to the analysis or the traces of titanium.


(E) the discovery of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map must have occurred before titanium was discovered in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible -------- It is not important for the Map to have been verified for titanium before the Bible or the B36. The case here is that we know that the Gutenberg Bible and the B36 contain traces of titanium AND are from the 15th century. On the other hand, we also know that the Map contains traces of titanium but its date has not been verified.

A)
Clearly written in passage statement that bible B-36 containing ink is a proof of being used by one author , restricted usage.
Map written in that ink - unrestricted use
(B)
How does it matter if they knew or not
(C)
Not concerned about date and location authentication
(D
Merits and demerits not discussed
(E)
Sequence is not discussed and is not important

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.