1000 CR Archaeologists seeking the location

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:18 am
Location: United Kingdom
Thanked: 5 times
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.
19. Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.
C

The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?
(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.
A
GMAT PREP 2-630
MGMAT (2):630
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:27 pm
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members
poonam1279 wrote:Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.
19. Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.
C

The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?
(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.
A
For the first part:
What is the information about the layers giving you? The higher up in the layer an artifact is found, the later the time it was deposited in the soil. Therefore, if archaeologists were to find an object in the bottom of the middle layer that only existed in a period AFTER the siege, then it can be inferred that the siege did not take place at any layer ABOVE that. This means the siege probably did not take place in the middle and upper layers. It is quite possible that the siege took place in the lower level, but we have to choose between two answers:

(A) and (C).

Archaeologists are SEEKING the location of the siege in SEVERAL places. Therefore, they are UNSURE where the exact location is. Therefore, it's not certain whether the lowest layer contains the remains of the siege or not. Therefore, (A) is not as strong as (C). Therefore (C) is the best answer.

For the second part:
The archaeologists are basing their information on which layer the siege can be in with respect to the artifact that is found. What can greatly undermine this thought process: If the artifact were moved around around by an outside force. If the artifact were indeed initially in the highest layer it would have been possible for the siege to have taken place in the middle layer. If something moves the artifact to the bottom of the middle layer, our assumption that the siege took place at a layer lower than the middle layer would be incorrect. Therefore (A) is the best answer.
Constant dripping hollows out a stone.
-Lucretius

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:43 am
Thanked: 1 times

by garima01 » Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:57 am
19)) the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city =>the location of both events are same=>siege led to the destruction of the city=>location and time period of both the events are same.
The argument says the pottery found in the middle layer belonged to the period later than destruction and therefore the middle layer does not represent the period of destruction and hence doesn't represent period of siege-CORRECT
still i have a doubt as there is a possibility of someother object being found in the middle layer which belong to the timeperiod of seige?

20) i narrowed the options between (A) and (D)
(D) weakens the hypothesis drawn from the evidence in ques 19
(A) weakens the evidence with a possible implication that pottery of type 3 could have fallen deep in the middle layer because of burrows

please help