Critical Reasoning

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.

IMO Ans is E , other choices are out of scope ...

leaning towards E.
However I did spend some time on C.
We know he peddled for 20 yrs and also that he was arrested for peddling "without Lic" in 1939. I dint really see "without lic' and concluded, in worst case if he was arrested on day 1 of his peddling, and continued off and on for next 20yrs, he would have done till 1959. so definetly before 1965.

So not sure of E or C..

Can some one help here!!!

IMO....C

it should be C

E is unsupported by question stem..
as there is no evidence of better or worst

My ans is E too .

Rest all are kind of out of scope

infrence-E

vittalgmat wrote:leaning towards E.
However I did spend some time on C.
We know he peddled for 20 yrs and also that he was arrested for peddling "without Lic" in 1939. I dint really see "without lic' and concluded, in worst case if he was arrested on day 1 of his peddling, and continued off and on for next 20yrs, he would have done till 1959. so definetly before 1965.

So not sure of E or C..

Can some one help here!!!

Perfect justification for C; why you are holding E then!!!
we are not told any info, from which we can deduce which is a better evdence.

(C) The undated document was written before 1765> 1739+20

C FOR SURE

E is the right inference. C is more ambiguous than E. So E it is.

E is the right inference. C is more ambiguous than E. So E it is.

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.

I go with E .

imo C

the problem with E is, it is wayyyyyyy too close for comfort.

I'll explain:

We have 2 evidences
1) - Police Record proving that Schnitzler was peddling

2) - Schnitzler's confession that he was peddling

Now, I am not a lawyer but I think both prove that Schnitzler was peddling and are likely to hold the same weight in the court of law.

I've got to go with C as he maintains that he has been peddling for 20 years. - meaning he hasn't yet given up. My focus would be on the tense here.