justharsha wrote: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.

[spoiler]OA: C
Cannot figure out?[/spoiler]

Two documents were discovered.

(1) October 3, 1739 - arrest for peddling without a license.

(2)Undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.



(A) Schnitzler started peddling around 1719.

Might be possible since the second period states he had been peddling for 20 years , the first statement claims he had been arrested in 1739 , so the timeline can be something like this -

1719 ====20 Yrs======= Year 1739 Or Year 1739 =====20 Yrs========Year 1759

Thus a composite Time frame will be from the year 1719 to 1759

1719==========20 Yrs===========1739===========20 Years=============1759

This the given statement may or may not be true , coz he might have been peddling during the following span as well-

1739 =====20 Yrs========Year 1759

(B) Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling.


The second statement claims - he second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.

Might be he was into the business of peddling for 20 years but except once he was never arrested ( Might be he deceived everytime)

So this is not definitely true...


(C) The undated document was written before 1765.

Once again refer to the timeline of his activity ( As presented to us)

1719==========20 Yrs===========1739===========20 Years=============1759----------1965

This seems possible ( Lets keep this aside)


(D) The arrest record was written after the undated document.

There is no evidence to claim it , might be the documents was just a newspaper clipping and not an arrest record.

(E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled than does the undated document.

Definitely arrest record does provide evidence but we can noway neglect the other document since both say he peddled , infact the second statement provides more information about his history of peddling...


So we are left with only C

Abhishek009 has given a very thorough discussion of this problem. I will simply try to explain it in a few words and draw on some techniques that we can apply to INFERENCE questions in general.

Inference questions such as this one - you can tell it is an inference because it says "which of the following conclusions" - are best approached through a process of elimination. We want to eliminate the four choices that COULD BE FALSE.

The best way that the four incorrect answers COULD BE FALSE is if the passage does not firmly support the answer choice.

For example, choice A, we do not know when the undated letter was written so we do not know if perhaps 1739 is the first year that Schnitzler started peddling. Yes 1719 to 1739 is 20 years but this might be just there to distract you.

Choice B, How do you know that this was not his only arrest - the on mentioned in the stimulus?

Choice C, this seems to be logical because you know that Schnitzler started peddling at least by 1739 so 20 years later is 1759. So the letter must have been written at least by 1960!

Choice D, You have no idea which cam first.

Choice E, This is subjective and would never be the correct answer.


So you see that if you are very decisive on inference questions you can efficiently eliminate the 4 incorrect answers.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Abhishek009 has given a very thorough discussion of this problem. I will simply try to explain it in a few words and draw on some techniques that we can apply to INFERENCE questions in general.

Inference questions such as this one - you can tell it is an inference because it says "which of the following conclusions" - are best approached through a process of elimination. We want to eliminate the four choices that COULD BE FALSE.

The best way that the four incorrect answers COULD BE FALSE is if the passage does not firmly support the answer choice.

For example, choice A, we do not know when the undated letter was written so we do not know if perhaps 1739 is the first year that Schnitzler started peddling. Yes 1719 to 1739 is 20 years but this might be just there to distract you.

Choice B, How do you know that this was not his only arrest - the on mentioned in the stimulus?

Choice C, this seems to be logical because you know that Schnitzler started peddling at least by 1739 so 20 years later is 1759. So the letter must have been written at least by 1960!

Choice D, You have no idea which cam first.

Choice E, This is subjective and would never be the correct answer.


So you see that if you are very decisive on inference questions you can efficiently eliminate the 4 incorrect answers.

Hi David

Not very convinced with the OA. C says undated document was "written before 1765. This does not have to be true. Could be written anytime. What stops Erich to write the undated document while in prison or even later?