• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

1000 cr test16 #15

tagged by:

This topic has 2 member replies
magical cook Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posted:
484 messages
Followed by:
1 members
2

1000 cr test16 #15

Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:42 pm
Hi,

The correct answer is C) but I am not sure why A is wrong?

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.

Cybermusings Legendary Member
Joined
27 Mar 2007
Posted:
559 messages
Followed by:
2 members
5
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:42 am
A is clearly out. We do not know whether he was arrested before/after he made the assertion in an undated document.
B; Nothing points out to his arrest as a repititive incident
D; Again we can't determine whether he was arrested before/after the assertion
E; Incorrect conclusion from facts
C; Even if he was arrested when he started peddling, the assertion was made for sure before 1765

Joined
10 Dec 2006
Posted:
363 messages
Followed by:
2 members
7
Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:05 am
Because we don't know when the second document was written since it is "undated", hence, we cannot assume that the second document was written in 1739. For instance, if the second document were written in 1740 that would mean that he starting peddling in 1720. We can only assume he was arrested several times.

_________________

Best Conversation Starters

1 Roland2rule 146 topics
2 lheiannie07 110 topics
3 ardz24 56 topics
4 LUANDATO 52 topics
5 swerve 49 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

153 posts
2 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

129 posts
3 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

129 posts
4 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

111 posts
5 EconomistGMATTutor

The Economist GMAT Tutor

79 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts