An archaeological site can be excavated only once, and many sites

Question

﻿Which of the following most logically completes the reasoning?

An archaeological site can be excavated only once, and many sites excavated in the past would have yielded far more information if they had been excavated using current technologies. These considerations have led some to argue that sites that could yield valuable information should not be excavated now since new, archaeologically valuable technologies will almost certainly be developed in the future. Insofar as technological progress is unlikely to stop, consistently following this recommendation over time would

A. maximize the archaeologically valuable information obtained through technological advances
B. ensure that virtually no archaeologically valuable information at all would be obtained 
C. guarantee that the number of potential archaeological sites will continue to increase 
D. encourage archaeologists to make better use of the latest archaeologically valuable technology
E. have the additional benefit of encouraging the development of new archaeologically valuable technologies

gmatophobia · Accepted Answer

Recommendation    → Don't excavate archaeological sites now. Wait for valuable technologies that will almost certainly be developed in the future.

Reasoning Provided   → archaeological site can be excavated only once.

The argument presents us with a never-ending cyclic process because every time one considers excavating an archaeological site one will not excavate as a better technology will almost certainly be developed in the future. We have to complete the argument keeping into consideration that technological progress is unlikely to stop. Therefore, following this recommendation, we will never be able to obtain any valuable information as the recommendation will always prevent the extraction of the archaeological sites in the first place.

A. maximize the archaeologically valuable information obtained through technological advances

This is not correct. Following the recommendation will prevent excavating the sites in the first place. Without excavation, we don't have any information let alone a valuable one. We can eliminate this option.

B. ensure that virtually no archaeologically valuable information at all would be obtained

Perfect! The premise already tells us that technological progress is unlikely to stop, hence it is a possibility that a more valuable technology will be developed in the future always holds true. And if a more valuable technology is likely to be developed the recommendation is to not excavate now but excavate when that technology is available. With the possibility of better technology always present, we may not end up excavating at all.

C. guarantee that the number of potential archaeological sites will continue to increase

Not true. The passage doesn't indicate any possibility of an increase in the archeological sites. Eliminate.

D. encourage archaeologists to make better use of the latest archaeologically valuable technology

The option is a distortion. The recommendation prevents any excavation if better technology is likely available in the future. One will not be able to use the latest technology as there will always be a possibility that better technology will be available in the future. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

E. have the additional benefit of encouraging the development of new archaeologically valuable technologies

This information is not supported by the passage. We don't know if the recommendation encourages any development whatsoever. Eliminate E.

Option B

bestgmat · Answer

Alright, let's break this down.

The argument says that since an archaeological site can be excavated only once, and technology continues to improve, some believe we should wait to excavate potential sites in hopes of having better technology in the future. If we consistently followed this logic, what would happen?

Let's analyze the answer choices:

This may sound plausible at first, because if we wait for better technology, we might extract more valuable information. However, the argument is about delaying excavation indefinitely, so we may never actually get around to excavating and obtaining information.

If we keep waiting for better technology, then sites wouldn't be excavated. This means we wouldn't obtain any information from them. This choice seems to match the outcome of the proposed recommendation.

The number of sites doesn't increase because we wait to excavate them. They remain the same, so this isn't a logical outcome.

This recommendation doesn't really touch upon the use of current technology. It's more about waiting for future technology. So, this isn't directly supported by the argument.

The argument doesn't suggest that by waiting, we encourage the development of new technologies. The assumption is that technological progress will continue regardless.

Given our analysis, the most logical conclusion of consistently waiting for better technology before excavating is that we would end up not excavating and thus, not obtaining any valuable information.

B. ensure that virtually no archaeologically valuable information at all would be obtained  is the answer that most logically completes the reasoning.

Paras96 · Answer

IMO A

With technological advancement, there will be more information available to archaeologists.

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

Which of the following most logically completes the reasoning?

An archaeological site can be excavated only once, and many sites excavated in the past would have yielded far more information if they had been excavated using current technologies. These considerations have led some to argue that sites that could yield valuable information should not be excavated now since new, archaeologically valuable technologies will almost certainly be developed in the future. Insofar as technological progress is unlikely to stop, consistently following this recommendation over time would

A. maximize the archaeologically valuable information obtained through technological advances
B. ensure that virtually no archaeologically valuable information at all would be obtained
C. guarantee that the number of potential archaeological sites will continue to increase
D. encourage archaeologists to make better use of the latest archaeologically valuable technology
E. have the additional benefit of encouraging the development of new archaeologically valuable technologies

The passage basically says that we shouldn't excavate a site right now because we can only excavate once and with better tech we'd learn more. That we should therefore wait until better tech comes out. The passage ends with saying that because tech always advances...(Fill in the blank)

(B) is the answer. Clearly, if tech is likely to get better over time, even if some great tech for archeological excavations was invented a year from now, you would be back to square one because some EVEN BETTER tech would likely be invented later on.

FlyPig · Answer

(a) An archaeological site can be excavated only once, (b) and many sites excavated in the past would have yielded far more information if they had been excavated using current technologies. These considerations have led (c) some to argue that sites that could yield valuable information should not be excavated now (d) since new, archaeologically valuable technologies will almost certainly be developed in the future. Insofar as technological progress is unlikely to stop, consistently following this recommendation over time would

A. maximize the archaeologically valuable information obtained through technological advances
B. ensure that virtually no archaeologically valuable information at all would be obtained

A. maximize the archaeologically valuable information obtained through technological advances
B. ensure that virtually no archaeologically valuable information at all would be obtained

1. Initial premises:
 - (a) Archaeological sites can only be excavated once.
 - (b) Many previously excavated sites would have provided  MORE  information if modern technologies had been used during excavation.

2. Conclusion:
 - (c) Some argue that  current sites potentially holding valuable information should not be excavated now .
 - (d) Their reasoning is based on the belief that new and more advanced archaeological technologies will likely be developed in the future.

3. Logic flow in selecting the completion:

The argument establishes that sites excavated in the past could have yielded more information if modern technologies were available then. This consideration leads to the suggestion that current sites, despite their potential value, should not be excavated now due to the anticipation of better future technologies.

The question seeks the logical continuation of this line of reasoning:

Option A suggests that consistently following the recommendation (to wait for better technologies) would maximize the valuable information obtained through technological advances. While this might seem reasonable, it doesn't directly follow the argument's logic, which advocates for not excavating now due to the potential for better future technologies. It doesn't guarantee  MAXIMAL  extraction of information through technological advances, as it assumes waiting for future technology without a certainty of maximizing the information obtained.

Hence, the argument's flow indicates a more cautious approach about excavating current sites in anticipation of better technologies in the future rather than actively maximizing information through current technological advances, which makes Option A not the most fitting choice based on the reasoning provided.

tinbq · Answer

Hi experts,

Would you please help to explain why each choice is right or wrong? Thank you.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

tinbq

It looks like this one has been covered pretty thoroughly, so I don't know if another writeup will help. If you have specific questions about what's been discussed, or if there's something bothering you about the answer, let us know.

SergejK · Answer

I agree why choice B is correct. But isn't the fact that A talks that over time, if the suggestion is followed, we get the most possible results? The argument does not talk about the present but about the future, at least that is how I interpret "over time". Or are we dealing here already with an unstated assumption? Without "over time" I would agree that we won't get any archeological results. With "over time" this is a tough choice, at least for me, to ignore.

tanishqgirotra · Answer

I would have definitely gone for B instead of A if the last sentence of the premise would have included "however". I even pre-thought option b but ignored it as there was no turning point in the passage and eventually ended up selecting A because it aligned the best.

How to eliminate such errors?

How to eliminate such errors?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

I guess the biggest takeaway here is not to expect clear "trigger" words, especially on an inference question. The question is testing your ability to synthesize the given info, so "however" might be too big of a giveaway. Nonetheless, you did predict successfully! So stick with your convictions if you've put it all together without making any big leaps.

Having said that, a good clue is the first part of the final sentence: "Insofar as technological progress is unlikely to stop." That's a sign that we need to stop and use this information to project forward. What happens if that's true? We keep deferring excavations over and over.

SergejK · Answer

Ah ... I understand now why A cannot be correct. The passage mentions that the technological progress is unlikely to stop. With this statement, the passage initiates an endless loop by stating that a year later we could still get more information than now, even if on a microscopic or atomic level. As the answer choices talk about information and not artefacts, and a never ending technological progress loop is stated as premise, only choice B makes sense.

Anshika.g · Answer

Hi @dmitryFaber, can you suggest why E is wrong?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Anshika.g

We don't really have any support for E. The author says that these technologies will almost certainly be developed, and that some people want to wait for them. But we don't know whether waiting for them actually *encourages* their development. That would create sort of a circular argument: "These technologies are coming. Why? Because we're waiting for these technologies to come."

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.

An archaeological site can be excavated only once, and many sites

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

An archaeological site can be excavated only once, and many sites

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