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

Redeem

explorers of the abandoned city of ambrose, kansas

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

explorers of the abandoned city of ambrose, kansas

by rahul.s » Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:34 am
Explorers of the abandoned city of Ambrose, Kansas, discovered a pattern of obliterated streets and collapsed buildings characteristic of tornado damage. Engineers have hypothesized that the destruction was caused by a tornado that struck Kansas in 1976.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the engineers' hypothesis?

(A) Certain types of steering wheels, often found in cars dating from years preceding and following 1976, were found in several abandoned cars in Ambrose.
(B) No cars manufactured after 1976 were found in Ambrose, but cars manufactured before that year were found in abundance.
(C) Most historical textbooks that focus on Kansas mention that a tornado occurred there in 1976.
(D) Bicycles with banana-shaped seats, popular in Kansas between 1976 and 1986, were found in Ambrose.
(E) A torn magazine advertisement for low-tar cigarettes that were only offered in the early 1980's was found in Ambrose.

OA is B, but i opted for C.
Source: Knewton

in such problems, can we use additional info not given?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:07 am
Yes additional info. can be brought in STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN questions

(A) Certain types of steering wheels, often found in cars dating from years preceding and following 1976, were found in several abandoned cars in Ambrose.
Incorrect : This answer choice only weakens the engineers' hypothesis by stating that steering wheels used in cars after 1976 were found which implies that the destruction was not caused by a tornado that struck kansas in 1976.

(B) No cars manufactured after 1976 were found in Ambrose, but cars manufactured before that year were found in abundance.
Correct : If cars manufactured after 1976 were not found in Ambrose it could be because the city was struck by tornado in 1976 and abandoned.

(C) Most historical textbooks that focus on Kansas mention that a tornado occurred there in 1976.
Incorrect : Just because historical texts mention about its occurrence it is not good enough reason to believe that a tornado actually struck.

(D) Bicycles with banana-shaped seats, popular in Kansas between 1976 and 1986, were found in Ambrose.
Incorrect : This only weakens the argument by implying that the tornado might not have struck in kansas in 1976.

(E) A torn magazine advertisement for low-tar cigarettes that were only offered in the early 1980's was found in Ambrose.
Incorrect : ------ Same as D ------
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:22 am
komal wrote:
(C) Most historical textbooks that focus on Kansas mention that a tornado occurred there in 1976.
Incorrect : Just because historical texts mention about its occurrence it is not good enough reason to believe that a tornado actually struck.
I think C is incorrect not because of this reason.

C should not be picked because it is just a repetition of a fact provided in the stimulus on which scientists' hypothesis is based.

Remember, we have to give support to the hypothesis : "destruction was caused by the tornado".

We don't have to prove that "tornado struck Ambrose in 1976".
Regards,
Harsha
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:29 am
harshavardhanc wrote:
komal wrote:
(C) Most historical textbooks that focus on Kansas mention that a tornado occurred there in 1976.
Incorrect : Just because historical texts mention about its occurrence it is not good enough reason to believe that a tornado actually struck.
I think C is incorrect not because of this reason.

C should not be picked because it is just a repetition of a fact provided in the stimulus on which scientists' hypothesis is based.

Remember, we have to give support to the hypothesis : "destruction was caused by the tornado".

We don't have to prove that "tornado struck Ambrose in 1976".
Thank you harshvardhan.... you do have a point : )
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by rahul.s » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:06 am
yeah, harshavardhanc is right. the OE mentioned that answer choice (C) brings in no new info. i opted for (C) because i thought that reinforcing the occurrence of the tornado in 1976 would strengthen the hypothesis and that's why i asked whether we can allow for new / additional info in such problems.
Last edited by rahul.s on Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
rahul.s wrote:yeah, harshavardhanc is right. the OE mentioned that answer choice (C) brings in no new info. i opted for (C) because i thought that reinforcing the occurrence of the tornado in 1976 would strengthen hypothesis and that's why i asked whether we can allow for new / additional info in such problems.
Choice C can be eliminated on two grounds. First of all, in stn/wkn and assumption questions, choices that RESTATE or CONTRADICT stated evidence are automatically incorrect. Stated evidence is true information. Hence, in stn/wkn questions choices that restate evidence do not increase or decrease the likelihood of the conclusion's being correct. In assumption questions, choices that restate evidence are automatically incorrect because assumptions are unstated. And choices that tend to contradict evidence are automatically incorrect because we must take the author's evidence as true--evidence is "given" to the author. It would be very odd that in order for an argument to be correct, the author has to assume something that opposes his stated evidence.

The other ground on which we can eliminate Choice C is that it is discussing what people believe (the textbook writer's). Choices that talk about people's beliefs, motivations and preferences are automatically incorrect because what people believe, prefer, or what they are motivated by, does not necessarily have anything to do with what is true in objective realty. There is one exception: where the argument is specifically about someone's or some group's beliefs/motivations/preferences.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:48 am
Testluv wrote:
The other ground on which we can eliminate Choice C is that it is discussing what people believe (the textbook writer's). Choices that talk about people's beliefs, motivations and preferences are automatically incorrect because what people believe, prefer, or what they are motivated by, does not necessarily have anything to do with what is true in objective realty. There is one exception: where the argument is specifically about someone's or some group's beliefs/motivations/preferences.
I eliminated choice (C) because of this reason.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:50 am
Testluv wrote:
rahul.s wrote:yeah, harshavardhanc is right. the OE mentioned that answer choice (C) brings in no new info. i opted for (C) because i thought that reinforcing the occurrence of the tornado in 1976 would strengthen hypothesis and that's why i asked whether we can allow for new / additional info in such problems.
Choice C can be eliminated on two grounds. First of all, in stn/wkn and assumption questions, choices that RESTATE or CONTRADICT stated evidence are automatically incorrect. Stated evidence is true information. Hence, in stn/wkn questions choices that restate evidence do not increase or decrease the likelihood of the conclusion's being correct. In assumption questions, choices that restate evidence are automatically incorrect because assumptions are unstated. And choices that tend to contradict evidence are automatically incorrect because we must take the author's evidence as true--evidence is "given" to the author. It would be very odd that in order for an argument to be correct, the author has to assume something that opposes his stated evidence.

The other ground on which we can eliminate Choice C is that it is discussing what people believe (the textbook writer's). Choices that talk about people's beliefs, motivations and preferences are automatically incorrect because what people believe, prefer, or what they are motivated by, does not necessarily have anything to do with what is true in objective realty. There is one exception: where the argument is specifically about someone's or some group's beliefs/motivations/preferences.
testluv is great

Testluv, can I summarize as following, ple, suplement

For Strenthen,(weaken) and Asuumption question we need

1.new information, in context of evidence, not contradict or restate evidence

2,increase belief (doubt) or pass negation test.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:08 am
Testluv wrote:
The other ground on which we can eliminate Choice C is that it is discussing what people believe (the textbook writer's). Choices that talk about people's beliefs, motivations and preferences are automatically incorrect because what people believe, prefer, or what they are motivated by, does not necessarily have anything to do with what is true in objective realty. There is one exception: where the argument is specifically about someone's or some group's beliefs/motivations/preferences.
yes, beliefs do not strengthen the argument, but any option that cites authoritative sources mentioning the same incidence serves to strengthen arguments.

Also, "mention" of an event is very different from belief.

Imagine this argument :

"
Explorers of the abandoned city of Ambrose, Kansas, discovered a pattern of obliterated streets and collapsed buildings characteristic of tornado damage. Engineers have hypothesized that a tornado struck Kansas in 1976.
"

options remaining same as in the original question, which one will most strengthen the hypothesis.
Regards,
Harsha
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:44 am
yes, beliefs do not strengthen the argument, but any option that cites authoritative sources mentioning the same incidence serves to strengthen arguments.

Also, "mention" of an event is very different from belief.

Imagine this argument :

"
Explorers of the abandoned city of Ambrose, Kansas, discovered a pattern of obliterated streets and collapsed buildings characteristic of tornado damage. Engineers have hypothesized that a tornado struck Kansas in 1976.
"

options remaining same as in the original question, which one will most strengthen the hypothesis.
Yes, this statement is indeed correct:
any option that cites authoritative sources mentioning the same incidence serves to strengthen arguments.
However, in this particular argument, the argument involves engineers' hypothesis of a tornado. So, this choice is really just telling us that another group--most historical textbook writers--also hypothesize (ie, believe in) the same thing. The fact that textbook writers share the same hypothesis doesn't really make it any more likely to be true. Now, if the choice had established empirical data supporting the hypothesis, then it would have strengthened the engineers' hypothesis.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:24 am
Testluv wrote:
However, in this particular argument, the argument involves engineers' hypothesis of a tornado.
the hypothesis is about the cause of damage: " the destruction was caused by tornado. " . The engineers already know that there was a tornado in 1976 and are sure about it.
Regards,
Harsha
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:38 am
Why do you think that?

All we learn is that there is damage characteristic of a tornado. The hypothesis is that there was a tornado that hit in 1976.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:33 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:2 members

by kstv » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:14 pm
Engineers have hypothesized that the destruction was caused by a tornado that struck Kansas in 1976.

The hypothesis is regarding the cause of the destruction. The fact that a tornando struck in 1976 is as certain as the destruction and that Ambrose was abondoned. So we can rule out C.

If the Engineers hypothesis is correct, evidence to ascertain whether the year of destruction was exactly in 1976 is imp. In option (B) why are no cars manufactured after 1976 found ? So Ambrose was abondened in 1976. Other option point to the year somewhere in the vicinity of 1976 but B is specific.
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:54 pm
The hypothesis is indeed about the cause of the destruction.

But, while it came close, the evidence never did establish that a tornado did in fact hit. The engineers are assuming that a) a tornado did in fact hit, and that it was the cause of the destruction, and b) that the tornado hit in '76.

Since the damage was characterstic of a tornado, the first is assumption is warranted; but it is still an assumption.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:57 am
sigh...

this problem is a blatant ripoff of the following problem, from GMAT PREP:
15. Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed
buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was
due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D. 365.Which of the following, if true,
most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis?
(A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessels that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following
A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion.
(B) No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in
abundance.
(C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occurred near the island in A.D. 365.
(D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and 400 were found
in Kourion.
(E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyprus after A.D. 365 were
found in Kourion.
this seems to skate dangerously close to copyright violation.
more importantly, this question provides zero value beyond the value provided by the above GMATPREP problem. so i'll just copy and paste an analysis i've done elsewhere for that problem. (the choices are even in exactly the same order!)

take the below text, replace "earthquake" with "tornado" and "365" with "1976", and you're all set.

--

when you consider STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN problems, you should SIMPLIFY THE ARGUMENT as much as possible.

in this problem, the argument basically boils down to
we know that the town was destroyed by an earthquake. therefore, it must have been destroyed by the particular earthquake in 365.

the weak link in this argument is the assumption that no OTHER earthquake could have caused the destruction.

therefore,
if an answer choice PINPOINTS THE DESTRUCTION IN THE YEAR 365, then it strengthens the argument.

choice (b) does this: coins suddenly stopped being made in precisely 365.

choice (c) is irrelevant: it just reiterates something that we already know, namely, that there was an earthquake in 365. this is not new.
if this argument said that there were NO OTHER earthquakes, it would strengthen the argument. but that's not what it says.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Post Reply