Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
11 Mar 2024, 10:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
71% (01:51) correct
29%
(02:14)
wrong
based on 1030
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time in the city’s harbor, in one sudden event in approximately A.D. 800. One possible explanation for the sinking is a tsunami, caused by a strong earthquake from a fault under the sea about fifteen miles away. However, it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships, since, if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
GMAT-Club-Forum-cjjrzms1.png [ 107.71 KiB | Viewed 3279 times ]
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-cjjrzms1.png [ 107.71 KiB | Viewed 3279 times ]
Trying to understand why the right answer is right?
GMAT Club Tests explanations walk through concepts, shortcuts, and common traps on many questions.
See how →
11 Mar 2024, 11:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time in the city’s harbor, in one sudden event in approximately A.D. 800. One possible explanation for the sinking is a tsunami, caused by a strong earthquake from a fault under the sea about fifteen miles away. However, it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships, since, if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships
The support for the conclusion is the following:
if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs
We see that the argument proceeds in the following way:
No records of major building repairs --> No major damage --> No earthquake --> It is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
This is an Assumption question. So, the correct answer will be an assumption on which the argument depends in making any of the three steps from evidence to conclusion outlined above.
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
This choice weakens the argument rather than states an assumption on which it depends
After all, if the fault had produced tsunamis earlier, then we have at least some reason to believe that the fault produced a tsunami that sank the ships.
Eliminate.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
This choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
After all, as we saw above, the argument takes the following step:
No records of major building repairs --> No major damage
So, what if this choice were not true and no record-keeping practices existed at the time? In that case, absence of records would not indicate that there wasn't major damage. After all, in that case, there would not have been records regardless of how much damage there was. So, if this choice isn't true, the argument doesn't work.
Thus, for the argument to work this choice must be true.
Keep.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
If anything, this choice weakens the argument.
After all, if this choice is true, then we have reason to believe that the ships were not sunk by a storm.
Eliminate.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
This choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, the argument doesn't require it to be the case that repair work was carried out quickly. After all, records of major repairs could have been found even if repairs took years or decades.
Eliminate.
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
This choice weakens the argument rather than states an assumption on which it depends.
After all, if a storm would have caused major damage, then the fact indicated by the passage that no records of major repairs were discovered would indicate that there was not a storm that sank the ships.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships
The support for the conclusion is the following:
if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs
We see that the argument proceeds in the following way:
No records of major building repairs --> No major damage --> No earthquake --> It is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
This is an Assumption question. So, the correct answer will be an assumption on which the argument depends in making any of the three steps from evidence to conclusion outlined above.
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
This choice weakens the argument rather than states an assumption on which it depends
After all, if the fault had produced tsunamis earlier, then we have at least some reason to believe that the fault produced a tsunami that sank the ships.
Eliminate.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
This choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
After all, as we saw above, the argument takes the following step:
No records of major building repairs --> No major damage
So, what if this choice were not true and no record-keeping practices existed at the time? In that case, absence of records would not indicate that there wasn't major damage. After all, in that case, there would not have been records regardless of how much damage there was. So, if this choice isn't true, the argument doesn't work.
Thus, for the argument to work this choice must be true.
Keep.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
If anything, this choice weakens the argument.
After all, if this choice is true, then we have reason to believe that the ships were not sunk by a storm.
Eliminate.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
This choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, the argument doesn't require it to be the case that repair work was carried out quickly. After all, records of major repairs could have been found even if repairs took years or decades.
Eliminate.
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
This choice weakens the argument rather than states an assumption on which it depends.
After all, if a storm would have caused major damage, then the fact indicated by the passage that no records of major repairs were discovered would indicate that there was not a storm that sank the ships.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
04 Apr 2025, 07:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time in the city’s harbor, in one sudden event in approximately A.D. 800. One possible explanation for the sinking is a tsunami, caused by a strong earthquake from a fault under the sea about fifteen miles away. However, it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships, since, if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Lets break the argument-
Background - "Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time in the city’s harbor, in one sudden event in approximately A.D. 800. One possible explanation for the sinking is a tsunami, caused by a strong earthquake"
Premise - If earthquake had caused the storm, there would have been major damage to the walls and buildings, but apparently there was no major damage as there are no records
Conclusion - Ten ships sank because of powerful storm and not because of earthquake (through tsunami)
Question asks us about the assumption made
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
Do we need evidence that the fault in question had already caused tsunami like this beforeeeeee to conclude that the sinking of ships happened because of storm. No right? Lets trust that it was the case that the fault in question in the one that caused Tsunami, so what? It can still happen that the event was caused by storm rather than by earthquake/tsunami.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
Lets assume if this practice didn't exist then the argument would break. If there were no record keeping practices then the reason there were no records found for repairs were due to no such practice at that point of time and not because no repairs were done. May be major repairs were done but not recorded.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
This would weaken of conclusion as it is a support for the stance that event happened because of earthquake. So not an assumption.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
Quickly or not quickly. Still the argument would hold true that it happened because of storm
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
Do we need to assume this? Even if the damage due to storm was as much "major" as earthquake would have caused, the argument would still hold - that this event was caused by storm. Doesnt matter the magnitude.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Lets break the argument-
Background - "Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time in the city’s harbor, in one sudden event in approximately A.D. 800. One possible explanation for the sinking is a tsunami, caused by a strong earthquake"
Premise - If earthquake had caused the storm, there would have been major damage to the walls and buildings, but apparently there was no major damage as there are no records
Conclusion - Ten ships sank because of powerful storm and not because of earthquake (through tsunami)
Question asks us about the assumption made
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
Do we need evidence that the fault in question had already caused tsunami like this beforeeeeee to conclude that the sinking of ships happened because of storm. No right? Lets trust that it was the case that the fault in question in the one that caused Tsunami, so what? It can still happen that the event was caused by storm rather than by earthquake/tsunami.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
Lets assume if this practice didn't exist then the argument would break. If there were no record keeping practices then the reason there were no records found for repairs were due to no such practice at that point of time and not because no repairs were done. May be major repairs were done but not recorded.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
This would weaken of conclusion as it is a support for the stance that event happened because of earthquake. So not an assumption.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
Quickly or not quickly. Still the argument would hold true that it happened because of storm
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
Do we need to assume this? Even if the damage due to storm was as much "major" as earthquake would have caused, the argument would still hold - that this event was caused by storm. Doesnt matter the magnitude.
