In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume

Question

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler’s arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Here is what i thought when I read this question and options: I went down the list of options. I noticed that some of them are comparing the two actions - "arrest for peddling in 1739" and "Assertion that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years"

Here were my thoughts - "arrest for peddling" doesn't mean he was actually peddling at that time. Whether he was actually found guilty or was guilty, I don't know.
HIs assertion was that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years. In my mind, I thought that well, he could have said that before his arrest (he stopped but was later arrested because they found proof against him after a year), at the time of his arrest or years after his arrest (perhaps he was imprisoned only for 2 months which was his off period; later he was on again!)

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.
This is assuming that he made his assertion at the time of arrest. There is no reason to assume that. Not true.

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.
The argument does not imply that anywhere.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
At first, I skipped over it. This is possible but if I assume that at the time of his arrest, he was actually guilty. "Before 1765" means just that - "sometime before 1765". So if he makes this assertion in 1750, it is still before 1765. Assuming he was peddling in 1739, he could have made this assertion at any time before 1739, during 1739 or 20 years after 1739 i.e. in 1759. All possible years in which he could have made his assertion would be before 1765. It is the same as saying that the document was written before 1900 or before 2005 etc.

So, I went to the next option keeping this in mind but not fully convinced with it.

(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
As we discussed before, there is no reason to assume "before", "during" or "after".

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.
Not true. We cannot say which is better evidence. Perhaps his own assertion should be considered better. It is highly unlikely that he would want to malign his own reputation. But then, perhaps the official arrest with date is better. We cannot say. How do we define what is better evidence? This option is asking you to take a call - you cannot do that. You have to look for a conclusion of the argument only.

This leaves us with (C) only. Best of the lot.

gmat1220 · Answer

(E) The arrest record provides   better evidence    that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

E is a comparison trap. You can NEVER attack the premise NOR compare the validity of the premise. Unless the evidence states it clearly that one premise is better than the other (which it will not).

Both the documents have to be given equal weightage unless it is stated that one is superior than the other.

jaynayak · Answer

Clear winner C.

Covers both the following possiblities.

1) The document was written before he was arrested.
2) The document was writtedn after his arrest.

ps_dahiya · Answer

Clear C. Its more of quant than verbal. :-D

Max year when the undated was written = 1739 + 20 = 1759 Min year when the undated was written = 1739 -20 = 1719

ssandeepan · Answer

OA is C .

As you have mentioned :
Premise1: H found 2 documents about E. 
Premise2: 1st document, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of E arrest for peddling without a license. 
Premise3: 2nd document, undated, is a statement by E asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

so , if 1739 was the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling, the the second document would be from 1759, which is before 1765. And if 1739 was not the 1st time Erich Schnitzler was cycling , then definately the the second document would be before 1759.

Abhishek009 · Answer

The information presented above can have 2 possible scenarios as detailed below - Untitled.png Hence we can confidently claim only statement (C) that The undated document was written before 1765 Hence IMHO with answer (C)

Nick90 · Answer

Actually I marked the answer choice E, But after closely reading the stimulus again .

Answer choice C is the best conclusion we can make .

1) The dated doc was written in 1739 .

2) Undated says ES is paddling from last 20 years .

If you combine 1 and 2 . the extreme case is ES started in 1739 and after 20 years in 1759 undated doc is written .

Thus we can easily conclude that undated doc is written before 1765 .

guptakashish02 · Answer

Hi  daagh  sir,  VeritasKarishma 
Need help here. I marked E as it was the best of the lot.
 
I neglected C because before 1765 means 1764,1763 for which the argument will not hold true.

daagh · Answer

I am not sure whether E is correct or not. However, to me, C doesn't seem to be having the logical sanctity. See, he was arrested in 1739 and C says that 26 years later he claimed that he had been peddling for 20 years. Where did he do that peddling after he was arrested? Did he do it inside the prison?
On the other hand, was he referring to the peddling before his arrest? Then he would not have used a past perfect tense saying that he had had been peddling for 20 years. He would have said in a simple past that he peddled for 20 years before he was arrested in 1739. This he could have said just within a few days of his arrest. Why would he have to wait for 26 years? 
 
Secondly, what is the sanctity of the year 1765? For all that, one can even say that the second document was written in 1800, for which also all the answers will hold good.

Therefore, I find it hard to gulp C as the conclusion.

However, the anti-climax is that this is an official question and our intuitions may be faulty.

sgaaa · Answer

A. If 1739 May 3 was his first day then this is not true
B. If the undated statement was made in connection with the arrest made in 1739 then this cannot be the conclusion
C. Since in the undated document says '20 years' and in 1739 he WAS arrested for peddling.. even if we consider that 1739 was his first time peddling...at the most the undated document could have been written in 1759, much less than 1765
D. The arrest record might be written before also.. because there is a gap of 20 years max
E. Both are equal evidence that Schnitzler used to peddle

So I will go with C

Sonia2023 · Answer

AjiteshArun - Would request you to share your thoughts on this question.

The correct answer is C but I am slightly confused because I am unable to understand why the undated document would have been written before 1765. I was initially confused between C and D. I did not select D because I don't know what is the timeline. It can very well be before or after he got arrested. Why I picked C? Because I had no other option which looked better and doing some quick math +(-)20 to 1719, this choice looked ok but I haven't understood the logic behind the choice because the following situation can also be true:

For instance- He got arrested on May 3, 1739. Assuming he was in jail for 10 years until 1749 and then after 20 years, in 1769, he made a statement that he had been peddling off and on for 20 years. So how can we say with surety that the undated document was written before 1765.

Thank you

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi Sonia0106, There are a couple of things we should look at here: 1. This is an inference question (it is not the more specific "must be true" type). Here is the stem: Effectively, the question asks us for the most likely inference. 2. Your reasoning is absolutely correct. We can't be sure that the undated document was written before 1765, as the record of arrest or the statement (or both) could be false. But your other point is also correct: there is no better option. Moreover, the question doesn't need us to be sure . It says "The facts above best support which of the following conclusions". Now, the facts given to us don't give us any reason to think that either the record of arrest or the statement is false. So we look at the five options, find that C is the best of them, and therefore pick C.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - We have two premises 
1. One document dated May 3, 1739, regarding Erich Schnitzler's (ES's) arrest for peddling without a license. 
2. The undated statement: ES said he has been peddling for 20 years.

Option Elimination

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719. - If he says the 2nd statement on the same day, it's right. But what about when he said the 2nd statement? Maybe he was given a warning five years back, but he didn't stop it, and finally, he got arrested in 1739; in that case, it's not true. So, it may or may not be true. We need to find "must be true" based on the inference. Such might be true options are wrong on inference. 
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling. - We don't know from the argument. Maybe or maybe not. Wrong. 
(C) The undated document was written before 1765. - There is nothing in the argument that contradicts it. Even if we add 20 years to 1739, it's still before 1765. So this is ok. 
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document. - We don't know from the argument. Maybe or maybe not. Wrong. 
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than the undated document. - We don't know from the argument. Maybe or maybe not. Wrong.

HL8542 · Answer

Still a little confused with C. A lot of discussion about how 1765 covers the situation in which if the 20 years of peddling happened after he got arrested it could still work because it would end by 1759. That part makes sense but why is it okay to assume that Erich would write the undated note immediately after he stops peddling? Sure, he can cover the 20 years of peddling by 1759 even after his arrest but unless I am missing something major, which I could be, there's nothing to say that he wrote it immediately after the 20 years. For all we know he could have written it at a much later time after 1765. Is it simply because the question is asking for what is best supported?

egmat · Answer

You're Right - It's About "Best Supported" 
This is an INFERENCE question, not a PROOF question.

The Language Matters: 
"I  HAVE BEEN  peddling off and on for 20 years"

Present perfect tense → Writing this while peddling or just after stopping
vs. "I peddled for 20 years back in my youth" → Reminiscing much later

The phrasing suggests a contemporaneous statement, not a distant memory.

The Logic Chain: 
   What We Know 
 What It Implies 
 
  Peddling in 1739 (arrest proves it) 
 1739 falls within the 20-year period 
 
  Latest scenario: 1739 = year 1 
 20 years ends by 1759 
 
  "Have been peddling" = contemporaneous 
 Written around end of peddling 
 
  Most reasonable timing 
 Written by ~1759 
 
  1759 < 1765 
 C is supported ✓

Bottom Line: 
Could he have written it in 1780? Technically possible.
Is that the most reasonable interpretation? No.
Does C hold under reasonable interpretation? Yes.
That's why C is the  BEST  supported - not the only possible answer. Your instinct about the question type is exactly right.

gauravgk13 · Answer

KarishmaB

But what if at the time of arrest he was not actually peddling and the undated doc was written in 1770 ?

guddo · Answer

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler’s arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years. 
 
The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?

The dated document shows that Schnitzler was peddling in 1739. The undated document says that, at the time he wrote it, he had been peddling for 20 years. Since we already know he was peddling in 1739, the undated document was probably written no more than about 20 years after 1739.  So it was almost certainly written before 1765 .

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.

This is not supported. That would be true only if the undated statement was written around 1739.

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.

This is unsupported. We know of only one arrest.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765.

This is correct. Since Schnitzler was peddling in 1739 and the undated statement says he had been peddling for 20 years, the statement was very likely written before 1765.

(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.

This is not supported. The undated document could have been written before or after the arrest record.

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

This is not supported. The question gives no basis for comparing the reliability of the two documents.

Answer: (C)

egmat · Answer

Hi gauravgk13,

Your two objections are both fair, and the second one is the real key, so let me take them in turn.

On "what if he wasn't actually peddling at the time of arrest":  the arrest is  for peddling without a license.  For this question we take the premise at face value - it places Schnitzler peddling around  1739 . So 1739 sits  inside  the 20-year span he describes, not outside it.

On "what if the undated doc was written in 1770":  this is the heart of it. You're testing C as if it had to be  certainly  true - and you're right that, in pure logic, he  could  have written the note in 1770. But notice the question stem: it asks which conclusion the facts  best support , not which one  must  be true. This is an inference question, not a proof question, so the bar is "most reasonable reading," not "airtight."

Now read his exact words:  "he has been peddling off and on for 20 years."  That  present-perfect  phrasing ("has been") reads as someone writing while still peddling or just after stopping - not someone looking back decades later (which would sound like  "I peddled for 20 years in my youth" ). So the most reasonable timing puts the note near the  end  of the 20-year span.

Take the latest reasonable case: 1739 is year one of the span -> it ends in  1759 . 1759 is before  1765 , so C holds. Your 1770 story isn't impossible - it's just not the  best-supported  reading, and that's all C needs to be.

Quick gut-check on the trap: if the stem had said  "which must be true,"  would you still pick C? No - and you'd be right. The single word doing the work here is  "support."  Stay strict about that distinction and these stop feeling shaky.

Answer: C

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume

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

What We Know	What It Implies
Peddling in 1739 (arrest proves it)	1739 falls within the 20-year period
Latest scenario: 1739 = year 1	20 years ends by 1759
"Have been peddling" = contemporaneous	Written around end of peddling
Most reasonable timing	Written by ~1759
1759 < 1765	C is supported ✓

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two docume

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