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

Redeem

CR question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:03 am

CR question

by [email protected] » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:04 am
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.

Could someone please shed some light on this question and analyse the answer choices?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:20 pm
Hi theodora.alexe,

This CR prompt is an example of an Inference question, so we have to be clear on the facts we've been given, then find an answer that is logically based on (or "extends from") those facts. The key to solving this question is to connect the two pieces of historical evidence.

The Facts:
-A researcher found 2 documents about Erich Schnitzler.
1st Doc: Dated May 3, 1739 - a record of Schnitzler's arrest for peddling without a license
2nd Doc: Undated - Schnitzler makes a statement that he HAS BEEN peddling for 20 years.

The Logic:
Since we know that Schnitzler was arrested on May 3, 1739 for peddling, that arrest MUST have occurred at some point during the 20 years that Schnitzler was peddling. Maybe the arrest was early in the 20 years, maybe it was near the end (or any time in between), but it WAS sometime during that time span. This gives us a "window" of time in which Schnitzler COULD have been peddling: A 20-year window some time between 1719 and 1759.

This isn't much information to work with, so the inference shouldn't be too hard to match up. Answer C aligns with the "date data" that we were given.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:03 am

by [email protected] » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:34 am
Very helpful answer! Thank you!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1