Archaeologists recently unearthed a prehistoric
statuette, portraying the figure of a woman, that
had been carved from a mastodon bone. A team
of researchers carefully studied the statuette,
which they named the Venus of Orleans. Since it
was similar in shape and design to another bone
carving, the so-called Venus of Grenoble, they
concluded that in all likelihood it was carved at
the same time, about 70,000 years ago.
Skeptics point out, however, that carbon-14
testing indicates that the recently discovered
statuette is only about 50,000 years old.
Which of the following, if true, would tend most
to weaken the force of the skeptics' objection?
(A) Carbon-14 dating places the age of the
Venus of Grenoble at 70,000 years.
(B) No other, similar, statuettes have been
found at the site where the Venus of
Orleans was unearthed.
(C) The carbon-14 dating process is unreliable
for objects dating from before 60,000 BC.
(D) The carbon-14 dating process has
provided unreliable dates for many objects
older than 100,000 years.
(E) Some speculation persists that the Venus
of Orleans was carved out of the femur or
thigh bone of a prehistoric ox.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Carbon Dating
This topic has expert replies
-
nileshdalvi
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
parul9
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:22 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
So the answer should be C.nileshdalvi wrote:Archaeologists recently unearthed a prehistoric
statuette, portraying the figure of a woman, that
had been carved from a mastodon bone. A team
of researchers carefully studied the statuette,
which they named the Venus of Orleans. Since it
was similar in shape and design to another bone
carving, the so-called Venus of Grenoble, they
concluded that in all likelihood it was carved at
the same time, about 70,000 years ago.
Skeptics point out, however, that carbon-14
testing indicates that the recently discovered
statuette is only about 50,000 years old.
Which of the following, if true, would tend most
to weaken the force of the skeptics' objection?
(A) Carbon-14 dating places the age of the
Venus of Grenoble at 70,000 years. -- This would end up strengthening the sceptics view point. So not right
(B) No other, similar, statuettes have been
found at the site where the Venus of
Orleans was unearthed. -- irrelevant
(C) The carbon-14 dating process is unreliable
for objects dating from before 60,000 BC.
--- can explain the carbon dating result. Will keep it as likely answer and read the remaining options
(D) The carbon-14 dating process has
provided unreliable dates for many objects
older than 100,000 years.
--- Since the statuette is claimed at 70,000 yrs, this fact is not relevant
(E) Some speculation persists that the Venus
of Orleans was carved out of the femur or
thigh bone of a prehistoric ox.
--- out of scope!
What is the OA?[/b]
-
nileshdalvi
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
theforrestgump
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:29 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
(C) The carbon-14 dating process is unreliablenileshdalvi wrote:OA is C. But do you have a proper explanation for C to be the OA?
for objects dating from before 60,000 BC.
FOR BC the years are counted backwards (like a countdown) 70,000BC come before 60,000BC, which comes before 50,000BC and so on.
According to choice (C),carbon-14 dating is unreliable for object dating from before 60,000 BC.
So if the Venus of Orleans does belong to the 70,000BC, which comes from 60,0000BC then carbon-14 dating would most probably give you a wrong estimate of the date according to the bolded reason above
-
nileshdalvi
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
forrestgump, acc to C, anything before 60000 BC with Carbon Dating is unreliable. That means Carbon dating around 52000BC was reliable. This means that whatever skeptics pointed out was acceptable. How does this weaken what skeptics say?
-
parul9
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:22 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
I am not too comfortable with BC and AD,but if we look at the passage, it talks about "70000 years ago" and "50000 years ago". It is only the answer choice that gets into the BC details. And the other answer choices are easy to eliminate. I am only left with this one, and so I mark this.nileshdalvi wrote:forrestgump, acc to C, anything before 60000 BC with Carbon Dating is unreliable. That means Carbon dating around 52000BC was reliable. This means that whatever skeptics pointed out was acceptable. How does this weaken what skeptics say?
That's how I did it.
-
Geva@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
- Thanked: 378 times
- Followed by:123 members
- GMAT Score:760
We are trying to weaken the skeptics' view. But the skeptics are basing their estimate on hard science - carbon-14. How can we weaken science? The right answer choice should show that the science, while generally reliable, does not apply in the specific case of the venus, which is just what C does: If the venus is indeed 70,000 years old, then the carbon-14 dating will give unreliable results - it's only good as early as 60,000 years ago.nileshdalvi wrote:forrestgump, acc to C, anything before 60000 BC with Carbon Dating is unreliable. That means Carbon dating around 52000BC was reliable. This means that whatever skeptics pointed out was acceptable. How does this weaken what skeptics say?
-
nileshdalvi
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
If the venus is indeed 70,000 years old, then the carbon-14 dating will give unreliable results - it's only good as early as 60,000 years ago.
This was a nice one Geva, thanks. I somehow couldnot think of the fact that if the object was really 70000 years old then the Carbon Dating would be unreliable and the 50,000 mark given by sceptics would be false.
Although, I had got this one correct, but have always be trapped in True/False kind of problems. I guess I need to practice them more...
This was a nice one Geva, thanks. I somehow couldnot think of the fact that if the object was really 70000 years old then the Carbon Dating would be unreliable and the 50,000 mark given by sceptics would be false.
Although, I had got this one correct, but have always be trapped in True/False kind of problems. I guess I need to practice them more...
