A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
Which of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?
A. The artist has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.
B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.
C. The artist worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.
D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.
E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.
OA D
Source: Magoosh
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Premise: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree.
Conclusion: In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old.
So, we want to examine the options to see which can serve as the assumption of this passage.
Option A - Incorrect:
The other works of art produced by the artist are not the subject matter of consideration in this passage. So, this assumption holds no strong point.
Option B - Incorrect:
We cannot be so sure about this assumption because the number of years the tree lived before it was cut down was not stated in the passage. It could have lived less or more than 1000 years before cutting it down, we can't be so sure. However, we can still deduce that the tree has lived more than 1000 years because a table that has lived 1000 years was made from its trunk.
Option C - Incorrect:
This is out of context with respect to the passage.
Option D - Correct:
For each passing year, a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. In addition to validating the passage conclusion from my point of view assumption, if the table made from the trunk of the tree has lived 1000 years; this means that the tree in question has lived at least 1000 years. So, we can easily assume that the wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.
Option E - Incorrect:
Of course, the dendrochronology approach is only accurate for trees that lived less than 2000 total years, and this validates this claim ("Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world"). However, this doesn't build an assumption to make the passage conclusion a reality (i.e .... summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old.).
Conclusion: In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old.
So, we want to examine the options to see which can serve as the assumption of this passage.
Option A - Incorrect:
The other works of art produced by the artist are not the subject matter of consideration in this passage. So, this assumption holds no strong point.
Option B - Incorrect:
We cannot be so sure about this assumption because the number of years the tree lived before it was cut down was not stated in the passage. It could have lived less or more than 1000 years before cutting it down, we can't be so sure. However, we can still deduce that the tree has lived more than 1000 years because a table that has lived 1000 years was made from its trunk.
Option C - Incorrect:
This is out of context with respect to the passage.
Option D - Correct:
For each passing year, a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. In addition to validating the passage conclusion from my point of view assumption, if the table made from the trunk of the tree has lived 1000 years; this means that the tree in question has lived at least 1000 years. So, we can easily assume that the wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.
Option E - Incorrect:
Of course, the dendrochronology approach is only accurate for trees that lived less than 2000 total years, and this validates this claim ("Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world"). However, this doesn't build an assumption to make the passage conclusion a reality (i.e .... summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old.).
