Kaplan: John Garstang's theory

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:45 pm
Thanked: 2 times

Kaplan: John Garstang's theory

by shubhamkumar » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:03 am
An ongoing archeological controversy surrounds the question of the date of the abandonment of the old city of Jericho. In the 1930s the site was excavated by the archaeologist John Garstang, who discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls, which he dated at about 1400 BC, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest, leading him to conclude that the city had fallen in war. In 1950, another archeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, dated the most recent of Jericho's walls at 2300 BC. Kenyon found no evidence of defensive structures that could confirm Garstang's claims that Jericho had been destroyed by the Israelites in the 15th century BC. In fact, she concluded that Jericho had lain in ruins for centuries before the Israelites arrived.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best additional support for Garstang's theory about the date of the abandonment of Jericho?

A.The oldest walls found at the site, along with a number of houses and courtyards, had been constructed over 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic age.
B.An abundance of pottery located at the site coincides with other local pottery common to the 15 th century BC.
C.The walls of Jericho had been repaired and rebuilt at least seventeen times, probably following damage caused by earthquakes.
D.Carbon-14 testing of a sample of charcoal found on the site indicated a date of 1800 BC.
E.Earlier archeologists who hoped to confirm the biblical story of the Israelites' conquest of Jericho concluded that the city had been unoccupied at the time such conquest would have occurred.

OA B :shock:
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:08 pm
Garstang's theory is that Jericho was abandoned in the 15th century BC, while Kenyon says that Jericho was abandoned long before that. We're looking for something that supports Garstang.

A--we don't particularly care when the walls were constructed

B--if there is pottery dating to the 15th century BC, that would be evidence that Jericho was still inhabited at that point, which contradicts Kenyon's conclusion and somewhat bolsters Garstang's.

C--we don't really care about repairs of the walls

D--The charcoal dating neither strengthen nor weakens Garstang's theory.

E--This could weaken Garstang's theory.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:45 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by shubhamkumar » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:51 pm
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:Garstang's theory is that Jericho was abandoned in the 15th century BC, while Kenyon says that Jericho was abandoned long before that. We're looking for something that supports Garstang.

A--we don't particularly care when the walls were constructed

B--if there is pottery dating to the 15th century BC, that would be evidence that Jericho was still inhabited at that point, which contradicts Kenyon's conclusion and somewhat bolsters Garstang's.

C--we don't really care about repairs of the walls

D--The charcoal dating neither strengthen nor weakens Garstang's theory.

E--This could weaken Garstang's theory.
Bill,
Thank you for your help!
The point which confuses me is that Garstang's theory's conclusion was that the cause of the walls falling were Israelites and War.B implies that Jericho was inhabited during the 1500BC it does not imply that it was destroyed in a war.I feel that B does more to refute Kenyon's findings,as her conclusion was that Jericho existed only after 2300 BC.
How does B strengthen Garstang?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:36 pm
You have correctly identified that B does more to refute Kenyon's findings,as her conclusion was that Jericho existed only after 2300 BC

But you have misinterpreted The point which confuses me is that Garstang's theory's conclusion was that the cause of the walls falling were Israelites and War. These points are made INDEPENDENT to each other but you mistakenly concluded that destroyed walls were cause of war.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:01 am
shubhamkumar wrote:
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:Garstang's theory is that Jericho was abandoned in the 15th century BC, while Kenyon says that Jericho was abandoned long before that. We're looking for something that supports Garstang.

A--we don't particularly care when the walls were constructed

B--if there is pottery dating to the 15th century BC, that would be evidence that Jericho was still inhabited at that point, which contradicts Kenyon's conclusion and somewhat bolsters Garstang's.

C--we don't really care about repairs of the walls

D--The charcoal dating neither strengthen nor weakens Garstang's theory.

E--This could weaken Garstang's theory.
Bill,
Thank you for your help!
The point which confuses me is that Garstang's theory's conclusion was that the cause of the walls falling were Israelites and War.B implies that Jericho was inhabited during the 1500BC it does not imply that it was destroyed in a war.I feel that B does more to refute Kenyon's findings,as her conclusion was that Jericho existed only after 2300 BC.
How does B strengthen Garstang?
Well, for the city to be abandoned in the 15th century BC, it must have been occupied at that point. B goes some way to proving this. As you said, the other part of Garstang's theory is that Jericho fell in war. Remember, though, that on a Strengthen question, we're not trying to prove the conclusion definitively; we're simply trying to make it more likely to be true. Often, simply strengthening a part of the existing argument will be enough.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test