historian

OK the answer has to be C. For better understanding, let us apply the denial test to C.

Negating what C has to say
the undated document was written on or after 1765.

Suppose it was written in 1768.

It means that Erich is peddling since 1748.

But then how can he be arrested in 1739, nine years before he actually started peddling??

You see the argument falls apart if we negate C. Hence C has to be the correct answer here.

OA is C

callmemo wrote:Why not A?

The stimulus tells us one thing for sure, the second document should be dated later than the first one. But this doesn't necessarily conclude that the second document should be written before 1765. For instance, it could be dated much later.

No it doesn't, hence "undated." It could be, but doesn't have to be. He could've written a statement for his memoir on May 2, 1739 and then got arrested the very next day. If this was the case, then yes, he started peddling in 1719.

But again, he could've written the statement the after the arrest--twenty years later. Matter of fact, May 3 could've been the first time he had ever peddled. What we do know for certain is that he's been doing it for twenty years, and we also know the latest he could've started was May 3, 1739. This means that he could not have written the note past 1759, as he had been peddling for 20 years at that point. C is the only valid statement, as it covers this condition.

It cannot be E !! when the tw odocuments is sayign that he peddled ! E is infact negating both the arguments !!

as logitech mentioned !! +- 20!! wat ever u do < 1765

Vishu

OA C

vishu

Will go with E, as it says X provides better evidence than Y!

Sumit pls could you post the OA? thanks.

kartyc wrote:Will go with E, as it says X provides better evidence than Y!

Sumit pls could you post the OA? thanks.

crazy4gmat already has, and s/he said it's C. As for E, one doesn't provide better evidence over the other; they are both just as valid if both are true.

(C) cannot possibly be false, unless the documents are innacurate and does not rely on any assumption other than the accuracy of the stem.

(E) makes some sense according to conventional wisdom, but the assertion has no support in the stem. You have to assume that an arrest is stronger evidence of his behavior than his own personal account.

again, (C) does not rely on an assumption other than the documents being accurate, however if the documents are innacurate there are a number of possibilities

This is a "find the conclusion" type of question. The nuance of this type of question is that you are NOT supposed to project what would be a typical conclusion in a DS question because these are always based on assumptions. You are supposed to find the conclusion that is absolutely bulletproof.

Thanks be to Manhattan GMAT for that pearl...

I will go with option E