Verbal problems from the *free* official practice tests and
problems from mba.com
philip
 
 

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by philip Fri May 02, 2008 4:03 am

Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

The OA is B, but I find no ways to eliminate A, since they both indicate that Euro goods had existed in the area by 1920's. Please help clarify. Thanks a lot!!
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by RonPurewal Sun May 04, 2008 3:58 am

philip Wrote:Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

The OA is B, but I find no ways to eliminate A, since they both indicate that Euro goods had existed in the area by 1920's. Please help clarify. Thanks a lot!!


you have a good point; choice a seems to buttress the argument a bit, by providing additional support for the idea that european good should be at the site.
however
per the directions, you're looking for the one answer choice that MOST strengthens the argument.
choice b strengthens the argument more than does choice a, because it fills in a badly needed assumption. in particular, the argument moves from a statement that no european goods were found at the site to an inference that those goods were simply never there in the first place. that's quite an inductive leap, as not everything that was ever present somewhere leaves a trace; therefore, any choice that fills in that hole will be the best choice to strengthen the argument.

this is precisely what choice b does: by providing evidence that such traces are, indeed, left behind when the trade goods in question have been present, it fills in the logical hole described above.

--

hope this helps. just remember the following:
filling in a missing assumption is considered better than reinforcing statements that have already been posited when it comes to strengthening an argument.
here's the deal, though:
philip
 
 

by philip Sun May 04, 2008 5:40 am

Ron, so surprised that you pop up in the midnight ... My life got saved again. Thanks a lot!!
Pathik
 
 

by Pathik Tue May 06, 2008 12:28 am

Why is C wrong?

If european goods reached the camp and people did not consider those good worthy to store, they might have thrown those goods out, leaving the impression that those goods never existed in the camp.

Ron, to accept B, we have to make another assumption that camp near Dumaw creek were similar to all other camps in the region. How can we assume this.

Pathik
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

by RonPurewal Wed May 07, 2008 6:48 am

Pathik Wrote:Why is C wrong?


i can think of at least 2 reasons:

#1:

read the wording carefully: preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction

this statement carries no guarantee that 'as much as possible' will be successful in preserving those trade goods all the way to the present day, some four hundred years later. the trade goods could have been preserved as much as possible - in accord with this statement - and still disappeared before the present.

by contrast, there is no such problem with choice b, because that choice states that the goods 'have been found' at the sites (present perfect = this is a pattern that continues into the present)

#2:

'the first european trade goods to reach the area' may not have reached this particular camp.

--

pathik Wrote:Ron, to accept B, we have to make another assumption that camp near Dumaw creek were similar to all other camps in the region. How can we assume this.


why would we have to assume that?

the only similarity we would have to assume is that, IF the dumaw camp had been around after 1630, the european traders would have gone there, just as they'd gone to all the other camps.
that is certainly not an unreasonable assumption, and is just as certainly better than the alternative assumption ("maybe the traders somehow skipped that camp, even though their goods were found at all the other camps").
thanghnvn
Prospective Students
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:09 pm
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by thanghnvn Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:47 am

Ron, Manhantan experts, pls, help
1- the first.

In this question, the correct answer choice dose not ralate to any assumption. Here, the correct answer choice is another evidence which support the conclusion directly.

in many, if not most, other strengthening questions the correct answer choice is an assumption or new evidence which confirm an assumption.

is this correct? pls, confirm.

2- the second.

Normally, for many assumption based question such as weakening and strengthening, we can prethinking assumption and the possiblee weakener/strengthener. Doing so is very effective , I am sure.

But because for some problems, the correct answer choice is not based on assumption but a new evidence which directly support or weaken the conclusion, we should not rely too much on prephrased information/answer and remember that the correct answer choice dose not need to relate to the prephrased information.

I see this way of thinking is effective. Experts, please comment on this point.
tim
Course Students
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Southwest Airlines, seat 21C
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by tim Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:08 pm

both of these are good ideas!
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Follow this link for some important tips to get the most out of your forum experience:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/a-few-tips-t31405.html
cyprus
Students
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:57 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by cyprus Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:57 am

Dear instructors,

I am having the toughest time understanding this CR. This is how I am approaching the problem:

Conclusion: the camp dates no longer than 1630.
Why? (Premise) european traders were active in the region from 1620 onwards and none of their
goods were found at this camp. So author thinks that for the camp to date beyond 1630, some goods from the said european traders must have been found there.

But option (B) says that the goods have been found in camps reliably dated to late 1620's. I cannot understand how this is in conjunction with the author's thought (well, from what I understood) above. Please could you explain how I'm wrong? Thanks.


RonPurewal Wrote:
philip Wrote:Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

The OA is B, but I find no ways to eliminate A, since they both indicate that Euro goods had existed in the area by 1920's. Please help clarify. Thanks a lot!!


you have a good point; choice a seems to buttress the argument a bit, by providing additional support for the idea that european good should be at the site.
however
per the directions, you're looking for the one answer choice that MOST strengthens the argument.
choice b strengthens the argument more than does choice a, because it fills in a badly needed assumption. in particular, the argument moves from a statement that no european goods were found at the site to an inference that those goods were simply never there in the first place. that's quite an inductive leap, as not everything that was ever present somewhere leaves a trace; therefore, any choice that fills in that hole will be the best choice to strengthen the argument.

this is precisely what choice b does: by providing evidence that such traces are, indeed, left behind when the trade goods in question have been present, it fills in the logical hole described above.

--

hope this helps. just remember the following:
filling in a missing assumption is considered better than reinforcing statements that have already been posited when it comes to strengthening an argument.
here's the deal, though:
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by RonPurewal Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:10 am

even if the researchers think that the camp is actually from 1620 or earlier, that is still "no later than 1630".
sidnair225
Students
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:40 pm
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by sidnair225 Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:46 am

I rejected A not because it doesnt do as good a job as statement B. I rejected it because it doesn't address the conclusion directly. The author concludes something about the far end of the range. (i.e. "the camp dates no later than 1630"). Option A states that the goods could have got there well ahead of 1620s. That doesn't impact the conclusion, which talks about a MAX end-date for the camp.

In fact, I didn't think B was a great answer either - just the best of the rest available.

C. - just like Ron mentioned. What's the area? and what exactly does 'as much as possible' imply? Maybe they did the best that they could do and the goods still got destroyed. In such a scenario the argument is weakened. I agree that this answer is tricky though and it did get me thinking quite a bit. Then again, when you start looking for holes in an argument, they do begin to appear! (that's when close reading is helpful)

D. - irrelevant, don't care about the sequence of explorers vs. traders

E. - irrelevant
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by RonPurewal Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:23 am

Thanks, Sid. Do you have a question?

If you have a question, please clarify. Thanks.
liu1993918
Students
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:52 pm
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by liu1993918 Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:12 am

RonPurewal Wrote:choice a seems to buttress the argument a bit, by providing additional support for the idea that european good should be at the site.


Actually, I eliminate A, because I though A seems weaken the argument.
The author of the argument reasons that "no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward". The author assumes that only European traders can bring the goods to this site. A weakens this logic of reasoning by citing that Americans can bring the goods to here too.

Am I right?
If I am wrong, please correct me.
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by RonPurewal Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:57 am

ultimately A is irrelevant, because the only issue is "dates to 1630 or earlier" versus "dates to some time after 1630".

choice A would just move the date backward a bit, from the 1620's to some earlier time. this won't affect the issue, since any pre-1620 date, like the 1620's themselves, will fall into the "1630 or earlier" category.
Crisc419
Students
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:57 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by Crisc419 Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:03 pm

i thought choice C only support the argument a little.
because it says: "The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction. "

but in the stimulate, "European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward".
choice C does not say anything about all other goods except the first trade goods, why all those goods have not been found?

In my opinion, to support the argument more, choice C should say "all European trade goods have been preserved from loss or destruction". BUT it just says the condition about the first trade goods, so still leaves us a big hole.

please comment on my reasoning, instructors, thanks very much.

Cris
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native

by RonPurewal Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:06 pm

C isn't the correct answer.