A small collection of copper-alloy kitchen implements was found in an

Question

A small collection of copper-alloy kitchen implements was found in an abandoned Roman-era well . Beneath them was a cache of coins, some of which dated to 375 A.D. The implements, therefore, were dropped into the well no earlier than 375 A.D.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The coins used in the Roman Empire often remained in circulation for many decades.
(B) The coins were found in a dense cluster that could not have been formed by coins slipping through an accumulation of larger objects.
(C) The coins had far more value than the kitchen implements did.
(D) The items in the well were probably thrown there when people evacuated the area and would have been retrieved if the people had returned.
(E) Items of jewelry found beneath the coins were probably made around 300 A.D.

Source: LSAT

aggvipul · Answer

PPhoenix77 · Answer

Pre-thinking -> Coins didn't slip through the objects
Question type-Strengthen
A. Irrelevant
B. Inline with our pre-thinking.If coins didn't slip through, that means either the implements are of the same era or later than 375 AD.   Correct  
C. Irrelevant
D. So what 
E. not concerned about the time period of the jewelry.

deveshj21 · Answer

nightblade354 
Well to be honest this question sucked, I don't feel option B, although the best option, is correct bcz:
The conclusion is not about whether the coins fell into the well, its about whether they couldn't have been dropped into the well earlier than AD 375.
The premise is that a cache of coins were found beneath the implements and some of the coins were dated back to AD 375.

Harsh9676 · Answer

Hi  deveshj21

The question is correct as is.

The reasoning is that "since the coins that belong to 375 AD are found beneath the copper-alloy kitchen implements, the implements belong to a period after 375 AD".

What if there is a way that coins can be placed below the implements other than by just dropping them one on the other?

Choice B eliminates one such possibility and hence the stregthener.

nightblade354 · Answer

deveshj21 , reread (B) and the conclusion of the argument. The argument says you have coins beneath a pile of items. The coins are a good measure of date because they are dated. If they are too big to fall between the items listed, then that statement is correct. The coins, singular or together, always fit in the well. The conclusion doesn't care about things fitting in the well; the conclusion cares about how they settled there.

TheGraceful · Answer

I echo the same. Answer 'B' must be correct but point here is: No explanation so far made sense to me as none is establishing any connection with conclusion.

nightblade354 , nice question.
I even could NOT get a wrong answer. I was absolutely clues less with this.

GMATNinja ,
Please help.

GMATNinja · Answer

First, let’s consider the structure of the passage:

The author concludes that  the implements  “were dropped into the well no earlier than 375 A.D.” 
 He/she supports this by noting that some coins dated to 375 A.D. were found  beneath  the cache of kitchen implements in the well.

So, the author’s conclusion is not about when the COINS were dropped into the well. Rather, it’s about WHEN the IMPLEMENTS were dropped into the well. The author believes that because the coins lie  beneath  the implements, the implements must have been dropped into the well after the coins. So, because the coins were dated to 375 A.D. and therefore dropped in after 375 A.D., the implements must have also been dropped in after 375 A.D.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at (B):

One of the potential flaws in the author’s reasoning is that he/she assumes the coins were dropped into the well before the implements just because the coins are beneath the implements. Theoretically, it’s possible that the implements were dropped in first, and the coins were dropped in afterward, simply slipping through the implements and settling beneath them. But (B) eliminates this possibility, and it assures us that the coins were dropped into the well before the coins dated to 375 A.D. This strengthens the author’s argument, and (B) is correct.

I hope that helps!

TheGraceful · Answer

Yes.. it really helped.. and in a much simpler way.
Thank you sire..!!

AnujSingh0147 · Answer

Why my choice for option A is Wrong

I choose option A - wrong

Here you have to strengthen the assumption that 
the cache of coins were there first and then there were kitchen implement thrown in well in a sequential chronological order..

option A - Weakens - if the coins remained in circulation even after many decades then it is possible that anyone can throw a coin after 375 AD and breaks the sequential order that strengthen the assumption.

A small collection of copper-alloy kitchen implements was found in an

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

A small collection of copper-alloy kitchen implements was found in an

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