Critical Reasoning

Some archeologists hypothesize that Irish monks were the first Europeans to reach North America, roughly 100 years before the Vikings. The Irish monks, it is believed, crossed the Atlantic in boats constructed primarily of leather, in order to find isolation and solitude, and some of them might have settled with the Native Americans. Unfortunately, no physical evidence has been found to support this theory.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the hypothesis of these archeologists, taking into account the paucity of physical evidence?

A Archeologists now believe that the Vikings went to North America 50 years earlier than had been previously thought.
B Viking longboats were much faster and sturdier than Irish leather-bound boats.
C Leather tends to rot after only a couple of decades.
D Anthropologists have found no evidence of any Irish words or expressions in the languages of modern-day North America.
E Concrete, physical evidence of Viking settlements have been discovered only in Newfoundland, Canada.

C seems to support by stating that leather boats, which were used by monks, do not rot for 2 decades.

yeah.. C

Please post the OA along with the questions

Thanks,
V

yeah.. C

Please post the OA along with the questions

Thanks,
V

IMO - C

Supports the hypothesis of these archeologists...

IMO A

OA is C. Can somebody please explain ?

Guys,I am not able to decipher why C holds strong!!
Post ur explanations.
Today has been very unpleasant as I have opted only wrong answers...

statistics is something like 15 correct of 40...may be my temperament is very bad!!!

Argument is based on a premise that Irish monks crossed the Atlantic in boats constructed primarily of leather.

C strenghtens the premise by stating that travelling in leather boats is possible.

HTH.

this is hypothesis -from-evidence argurment which is common in OG 11

from an evidence, hypothesis is offerd. find new evidence which sthenthen or wheaken the hypothesis

we need to find choice which "tip the scale toward believing conclusion" as kaplan book said.

because there is no physical evidence, the C will increase the believing and is correct

any comment, pls, speak out.

IMO C because it strengthens the argument. It helps in explaining the lack of physical evidence.

From POE, C stands the best... the other answers don't really match as the answer

The leather boats that these monks used could have been used as an evidence of there presence/journey to america. Since the evidence rots so does any evidence of the monks coming to america on these boats.

gmatmachoman wrote:Guys,I am not able to decipher why C holds strong!!
Post ur explanations.
Today has been very unpleasant as I have opted only wrong answers...

statistics is something like 15 correct of 40...may be my temperament is very bad!!!

Really frustrating. No matter how much I study and practice i still make stupid mistakes

Do you mind if I ask about the source of this question?

Is it from Kaplan ?