When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitant

Question

When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball. The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico began to use rubber around A.D. 1000. Thus, we can be sure that the game must have originated sometime between approximately A.D. 1000 and Cortez’ arrival.

The conclusion reached above depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico played games on all ceremonial occasions.
(B) The making of rubber balls was one of the earliest uses of rubber by the inhabitants of Mexico.
(C) The ceremonial game referred to was popular throughout Mexico.
(D) The game had been played since its inception with a rubber ball.
(E) The dating of the first use of rubber in Mexico was due to Cortez

aragonn · Answer

Conclusion:

Thus,we can be sure that the game must have originated sometime between approximately A.D. 1000 and
A.D 1519.

game happens when ceremony happens.
this is possible that first they discovered game and then aopted it for ceremony.

(A) The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico played games on all ceremonial occasions. - talking about games not rubber ball game.
(B) The making of rubber balls was one of the earliest uses of rubber by the inhabitants of Mexico. - 
(C) The ceremonial game referred to was popular throughout Mexico. - but still it is not right assumption.
(D) The game had been played since its inception with a rubber ball.
(E) The dating of the first use of rubber in Mexico was due to Cortez - this is not even possible.

confused b/w B and D.

lets use negetion test. if negeted B, anything happens to conclusion i guess not.
if negeted D conclusion does not hold true.

bingo! D

sobby · Answer

Pre thinking :No other material is used to play the game..only rubber
D is the only answer justify that.

Skywalker18 · Answer

The first premise is important because it introduces the 1519 part of the conclusion and it also tells us why we're focused on rubber in connection with the game.

Necessary assumptions can seem out of scope at first. (D) is a classic case of this. Why does it matter whether rubber was the original substance for ball construction?

The argument is dating the invention of the game based on when rubber was invented (or first used). Synthetic materials in modern basketballs were probably invented in the last decade. When was basketball invented? What if the Mexicans played with the heads of their enemies for thousands of years and then switched to rubber when they discovered it in the year 1000 because it bounced better? So the only way this argument can work is if the game was played from the beginning with rubber. (D) removes this "heads of enemies" possibility.

(A) is actually out of scope. We care about when it was invented not why/when it was played.

(B) The conclusion is that the game was invented some time between 1000 and 1519. If it was the very last thing the Mexicans did before Cortez arrived (I'm applying the negation test here), the argument still works. This isn't necessary for the argument.

(C) is also out of scope. We don't care where in Mexico it was popular. We only care when it was invented.

(E) is inviting us to question the premise that rubber was first used in 1000 A.D. (E) tells us that Cortez was the one who determined when the Mexicans started using rubber. For the purposes of the LSAT, Daffy Duck could have been the archeologist who determined when the Mexicans invented rubber. If we're given that as a premise, we can take it to the bank. Remember, we are addressing the gap between the premise and the conclusion---not questioning the premise or the conclusion themselves.

septwibowo · Answer

Try to negate D : 
 
 The game had  NOT  been played since its inception with a rubber ball   or maybe 
  The game had been played  BEFORE  its inception with a rubber ball.

This argument fails to correlate rubber and game invention.

Wdyt?

spetznaz · Answer

+1 for option D.

Premise - 
a) The explorer arrived in 1519 AD
b) Rubber was used way back in 1000 AD
c) Explorer observed natives play a game that used rubber ball

Conclusion -
Game was introduced sometime b/w 1000 and 1519.

GAP -
Game was always played using rubber ball.

Only option D fits the bill !

David nguyen · Answer

When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball. The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico began to use rubber around A.D. 1000. Thus, we can be sure that the game must have originated sometime between approximately A.D. 1000 and Cortez’ arrival.

= AD 1519 -> observed game w/ rubber ball
+/- A.D. 1000 -> Began to use rubber
Game -> invented b/t A.D. 1000 & A.D. 1519

What is the missing link here? Cortez learnt the game at AD1519 but we concluded that it was invented way back at around A.D. 1000. What If the game was invented in A.D 100? Then we can't say that It was originated b/t A.D 1000 & A.D. 1519. Perhaps the game was invented at A.D. 900, or maybe A.D. 200? Who knows? Without any further explanation, this is a big hole.

The author never mentioned the time of the creation of the game; he had no evidence to back this up. The only evidence he had was the date that rubber was found. Are rubber and the game related somehow? The conclusion is merely a wishful thinking without the proof of this relation.

The problem here is that the argument introduced: A game  WITH  a rubber ball
Then concluded that: The time frame of the invention of the game     
 What is the relationship between the game and the rubber ball?

Let's check out the answer choices.

The conclusion reached above depends on which one of the following assumptions?

"GAMES", this is too general. The reasoning is concerned with only a ceremonial game WITH A RUBBER BALL. (A) is out.

The making of rubber balls was one of the earliest...-> the game was invented at that time. No! The making of the ball has nothing to do with the invention of the game. One cannot conclude that unless there is a relationship between the rubber ball's created date and the game's created date. (B) is out.

Whether it is popular does not help the missing link.

The game...with a rubber ball. Hey there is a connection here: the game is invented at the same time that the rubber ball was created. Let's hang on to this.

Again this is similar to (B). No information about the use of rubber ball in the game. (E) is out.

Only D is left. (D) is our answer.

unraveled · Answer

When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball. The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico began to use rubber around A.D. 1000. Thus, we can be sure that the game must have originated sometime between approximately A.D. 1000 and Cortez’ arrival.

The conclusion reached above depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Two possibilities are:
1. No ceremonial games were played before A.D. 1000
2. Ceremonial games started only after A.D. 1000 and that too with rubber balls.

(A) The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico played games on all ceremonial occasions. - WRONG. Playing games on all ceremonial occasions has no relation how rubber ball got involved in these games.
(B) The making of rubber balls was one of the earliest uses of rubber by the inhabitants of Mexico. - WRONG. Okay, then what. Did they straight away started playing ceremonial games only after rubber balls were started making? Didn't any other ball were used in ceremonial games prior to making of rubber balls?
(C) The ceremonial game referred to was popular throughout Mexico. - WRONG. May be but it has got to do with this argument.
(D) The game had been played since its inception with a rubber ball. - CORRECT. 2nd possibility and it is what upon which this argument is based.
(E) The dating of the first use of rubber in Mexico was due to Cortez - WRONG. Nowhere near the target assumption as it has no impact in the argument.

Answer D.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitant

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

When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitant

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