The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to

Question

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos’ invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities

(B) Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan

(D) Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris

(E) Whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C. have been found in Egypt

Note : This question is similar to  another GMAT Prep question , but with a slightly different passage and answer choices.

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Hello, everyone. I see some good responses in the thread already, but I thought I would take a moment to post my thoughts for the benefit of the community. Evaluate questions may seem more open-ended than, say, strengthen or weaken questions, but as always, we have to pay strict attention to what the passage tells us.

The first sentence is purely factual, telling us when the Hyksos invaded Egypt and during which period they ruled there.   The second sentence is short but crucial:  archaeologists hypothesize that   were Canaanites .   The final line provides the support for the hypothesis: artifacts from Avaris,  the Hyksos capital in Egypt , are  virtually identical to artifacts  from Ashkelon,  a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos' invasion .

The third line can be confusing if glossed over. There is a comparison between two "A" cities, and the proper nouns Hyksos, Egypt, and Canaan all enter the mix. Also note that the artifacts that appear  virtually identical  are placed within a particular timeframe, right around 1650 BCE, if we loop back to the first sentence. (I think it is safe to assume that the invasion did not last 100 years.) How about we jump into the answer choices, now that we have a firm grasp of the passage?

Everything fits here. If we trace the trading route, then we can see how the hypothesis would be affected:

1) artifacts from Ashkelon → non-Canaanite cites → Avaris may  not  have been a Canaanite city (anti-hypothesis)

2) artifacts from Ashkelon → Canaanite cities → Avaris was more likely a Canaanite city (pro-hypothesis)

In short, the answer choice does provide a consideration that would help to  evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence .

The thinking might go that if artifacts from other places besides Ashkelon were found at Avaris, then perhaps the Canaanite association would be diminished. The problem is that we are asked expressly about the evidence the archaeologists  are  using to back up their hypothesis. They are not pointing to artifacts that do  not  resemble those produced in Ashkelon. We have to make sure we are answering the question that is being asked.

Sure, a closer proximity might lead to more contact between different places, but just as we saw above, this consideration has nothing to do with the  evidence  the archaeologists are using to support their hypothesis. Avaris could or could not be  the nearest Hyksos city , and the hypothesis could hold. (Would it make any difference if it had been the second closest, for instance?)

Read too fast, and once again, you could get into trouble. The date matters here.  After  1550 BCE, the Hyksos no longer ruled Egypt, and remember, the artifacts in question  are virtually identical  to those produced in Ashkelon   at the time of the Hyksos' invasion  . What happened later does not inform a view of the hypothesis.

Like the previous answer choice, this one shifts the focus to the wrong time period. It also adds an overreaching  any — any  could mean one. This sort of specificity, counting the post-Hyksos'-reign artifacts, is unwarranted.

In my view, either of answer choices (D) or (E) would appear much more attractive in isolation, without the other. But back to back, they reveal a common problem, and it should be easier to eliminate the pair.

Perhaps the advice to pay attention to exactly what the passage and question say makes more sense now. As always, I would like to wish everyone good luck with their studies.

- Andrew

winterschool · Answer

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos’ invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A)  Whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities   Correct

if no artifacts were traded to non-Canaanite cities than can say Hyksos were Canaan, otherwise not

(B) Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris  Incorrect

not helpful

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan  Incorrect

that doesnt a fact, artifact could be traded with anyother cities

(D) Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris  Incorrect

irrelevant

(E) Whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C. have been found in Egypt  Incorrect

arguments timeline between 1650 to 1550 be, later period is irrelevant

harish555 · Answer

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos’ invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities 
Yes, we should know about this . If they were not traded, then there would be a chance that the artifacts would have been produced by local people without the involvement of Canaanites.

(B) Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris 
It’s already given that a large number of artifacts were excavated. So, b is out of scope

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan
Why it matters. If the location of Avarua was far away , would it stop them to invade. C is out of scope

(D) Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris 
Why is it required to know. We want to know whether the artifacts were produced locally or traded from somewhere else at the time of invasion, not after that. So, d is out

(E) Whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C. have been found in Egypt
A good option to invest time. 
Ok. Even though if artifacts were produced after 1550 B.C, does it have any effect on the hypothesis. We need to evaluate the hypothesis of archeologists . So, the time period of invasion is critical to understand the hypothesis. 
Between A and E, I go with A

Posted from my mobile device

Tanvay · Answer

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos’ invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities

(B) Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan

(D) Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris

(E) Whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C. have been found in Egypt

I will explain it in easier way. Argument says Artifcats manufactured in Ashkelon were found in capital during excavation. We need to question this so that we can defeat the conclusion - they were cannans.

D is confusing here but it says after 1550 BC even if finding it won't help us. It would have been great if we got anything before 1650. Therefore ans is A

Mantrix · Answer

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to : Critical Reasoning (CR) (gmatclub.com)
P1: The H invaded Nile Delta and ruled it from 1650 to 1550 BC
P2: Origin is uncertain, but hypothesis (They were C)
P3: In support of this, Archaeologists points out the excavations Hyksos capital, have uncovered a large number of artifacts, produced in Ashkelon (Major city in canon)

Evaluate?

A. Another Reason for transfer of artifacts to the non-cannatite city (this can be reason that artifacts produced in the A, but not invaded by H
B. NOT Relevant
C. NOt Relevant
D. May be the reason, but this is weakening the argument, (They are not produced in the A)  (TRAP, I being in the trap) 
E. Not relevant

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to

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

The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to

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