BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

One more question from 1000 Series

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:25 pm

One more question from 1000 Series

by saurabh_wakhare » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:05 am
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.

I suppose, Option (D) would be the right choice. But the answer sheet preferred (C).
Please help.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
Thanked: 214 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:740

by Birottam Dutta » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:43 am
@saurabh: Good Question!

Now, let us break the argument down first:

Fact: On May 3rd, 1739, Schnitzler is arrested for driving without a license.

Another undated statement, asserts the Schnitzler had been off and on for 20 years.

Now let us look at the time frame:

The undated statement can be either before his arrest, after or during the same time.

The undated statement can be dated at a maximum of 20 years after 1739. if it is later than that, then he would have said that he has been peddling on and off for the last "20+ something" years.

If this statement was before his arrest, then we do not know when it was said because it may have been said 20 years before 1739, but suppose he had started peddling at 1700, then he also could have said it in 1720. So, we do not know the time if the undated statement is before the arrest.

It can be during the same time as the arrest but again that is an assumption at best!

Now let us go through the options one by one:

(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719--- we do not know this.
(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling--- out of context.
(C) The undated document was written before 1765-- This is true as explained above.
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated
document---it could have been either before, at that time or after.
(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that
Schnitzler peddled than does the undated--out of scope.

Hence, C!
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:39 pm

by sams_online » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:43 am
Here, based on the given facts, the answer choice should surely hold true.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765.
Two scenarios
a) If the arrest was made prior to the undated statement then max date for the undated statement could be around 1759, which ofcourse is before 1765.
b) Otherwise, the arrest was made after the undated document. Then, anyways the undated document was written before 1765.
Hence, the answer choice is C
(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.
There is a possibility of the scenario where arrest was made before the undated comment.
Hence not convincing enough.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1