BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

War- lets see who wins!!!!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:01 am
Thanked: 2 times

War- lets see who wins!!!!

by rajatvmittal » Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:17 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:13 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:700

by hemant_rajput » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:05 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

rajatvmittal wrote:In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
IMO is C.

In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. This statement means their success doesn't depend whether they are going for offense or defense but on their strategy. Although, C suggest the chances of winning when going offensive.

what is OA?
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:650

by tisrar02 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:41 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

IMO option A.

We want to weaken the conclusion that knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success. Well A says that Knights had no knowledge of whether they would be defending the land or be on the offensive. If this is the case, Knights would not know where to position themselves thus we can not conclude that location is not relevant.

OA and Source???
Last edited by tisrar02 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dedication is what leads to success...
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:43 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

I'd go with A. If the knights did not whether they'd be invading or defending then we can't say they regarded location of battle irrelevant.

What is the source and OA?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:01 am
Thanked: 2 times

by rajatvmittal » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:31 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Answer A

Veritas
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:760

by nisagl750 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:03 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

whats wrong with D?

Since Nobles used to decide the location, knights would not know where to position themselves thus it can't be concluded that location is irrelevant.

Experts???

-nisagl
----------------------------
If I make mistakes please correct them
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:04 am

by Practicegmat » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:48 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

please explain in more details why (A) is correct ? I marked E:(
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:22 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 1 times

by saurabhdhakad » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:40 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Waiting for an expert's reply on this question :!:
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:13 am
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by rakeshd347 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:14 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

rajatvmittal wrote:In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Our aim here is to weaken the argument and the best way to weaken the argument is by attacking the central assumption of the argument.

Now in this argument author is saying that Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.
Now here author is assuming that knights knew about the location and they intentionally didn't regard the location of the battle as relevant to success. What if Knights didn't even know about the location then the assumption will be broken and the argument will fall apart.

Now a simple analogy for this argument would be something like this: John walks to his work everyday even though his work is 5Km away from his home. So John likes walking. Now in the above simple argument author is assuming that john have other alternative such as car or public transport of something. If we have to weaken the above argument we can say "what if john doesn't have a car or any other sort of medium to travel". Then authors argument will be weaken to some extent. May be John doesn't like to walk but he doesn't have any other choice but to walk.

I hope this helps.

In the original sentence option D doesn't weaken the argument. It basically doesn't do anything atall. It just adds more info for General knowledge I believe :) because author is making conclusion about knights and option D talks about Nobles.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:46 am

by Nitin.811g » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:57 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

A. In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land. ---> This means that the knights did not consider the location not because they thought it was less important but because they never knew about the location when the strategy was laid out. Hence it could be a potential answer

B.In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers. ---> Irrelevant

C.Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles. ---> Irrelevant

D. Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands. . ---> The strategy could be made post knowing the location and hence it does not weaken the conclusion

E.Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment. . ---> But it does not talk about the location not important

Based on above analysis, IMO, A should be the OA.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:21 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:5 members

by Anaira Mitch » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:14 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Can any expert comment on this question?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1