Critical Reasoning

Anyone wants to answer another assumption question? Could be helpful.

Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species: a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.

B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.

C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.

D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.

E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.

I think it's E. Any other thought?

I see "A"; it eliminates the possibility that mosaic stones, in question, are only found in the city.

Eliminating another cause for the conclusion dolidifies the conclusion.

Hope i am right. Your thoguhts pals ?????????

I think it doesn't matter whether the stones were found naturally or not What important is the depiction on those stones.
in E: if there was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar, then artisans from Sepphoris could create these mosaics as well.

OA is E.

For "E" If Sopphris city artisans were familiar with popular designs, they would't be able to paint the same subject as given in the stimulus ? That is whuy I did'nt consider E.
Also, A is important because if there were similar kind of stones material, where the painting on, in Sopphoris, there will be a chance that Sopphoris artisans painted the animals.

What is wrong with the way I think ??? Please help.


THAnks

IMO C

Could someone kindly explain exactly what choice A means ?

The conclusion of the passage is that the mosaics that are discovered are done by traveling artisans not by local artisans. In order to strenghen this conclusion, we must find the additional info to support this.

In A, the composition of the mosaics has nothing to do with the stem of the question. We only concern about the local and traveling artisan.

In B, if we say there is a single region that all these species in Sepphor are native, it doesn't weak the argument either. Again, we only concern about whether or not travel artisan created the mosaics.

In c, if the motifs appear in Sepphoris also appear in some other roman city, we still can not say who did them.

In D, again, another distraction about the characterisic about the animal.

Thus, in E, if we say it is common that this design are used by various artisan, we are weaken the conclusion by saying local artist can create them without traveling artisan.

Can someone please explain the reasons to chuck out each options one by one

I am just not clear on this one

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? - Conclusion that the mosaics were created by traveling artisans because they depict animal that did not live in the region.so we need a fact that says the only way to know these animals is to travel
A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area. We don't know anything about the stones so this doesn't say anything, the artisans could have either imported the stones or made the art in Sepphoris.
B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. This only says that all the animals are not from the same place but we don't know how they could know about the animals.
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. There is nothing special to sepphoris, but this doesn't tell us where the artisans came from or how they know about these animals..
D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species. This doesn't help at all - when and where were they known?
E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. if there were a common reertory then you didn't really need to travel to know these animals which you need to know for the argument - therefore this is the answer.

tpr-becky wrote:Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? - Conclusion that the mosaics were created by traveling artisans because they depict animal that did not live in the region.so we need a fact that says the only way to know these animals is to travel
A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area. We don't know anything about the stones so this doesn't say anything, the artisans could have either imported the stones or made the art in Sepphoris.
B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. This only says that all the animals are not from the same place but we don't know how they could know about the animals.
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. There is nothing special to sepphoris, but this doesn't tell us where the artisans came from or how they know about these animals..
D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species. This doesn't help at all - when and where were they known?
E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. if there were a common reertory then you didn't really need to travel to know these animals which you need to know for the argument - therefore this is the answer.

Hi Becky,

Please explain why B is wrong here in little more details.

It just seems like one can justify the correct answer to this question with a number of answers choices. I have a problem with E. It seems that if there were a common repertory of mosaic designs...then it would be more likely that the mosaics were created by traveling artisans, and the mosaics were gained through trade.