Museum A will henceforth display only undamaged objects of proven authenticity. Doubts have been raised about the origins of a supposedly Mycenaean vase currently on display in the museum's antiquities wing. The only way to establish this vase's authenticity would be to pul- verize it, then subject the dust to spectroscopic analysis.
The claims above, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Authentic Mycenaean vases are valuable and rare.
(B) Museum A has been beset with questions about the provenance of many of the items
in its antiquities wing.
(C) The vase in question will no longer be displayed in Museum A.
(D) Spectroscopic analysis has revolutionized the forensic investigation of art forgery.
(E) Knowingly or not, many of the world's museums display some forgeries.
I need an explanation as to why B cannot be the answer.
This is a question from manhattan critical reasoning
Pulverized Vase
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:54 am
- Followed by:4 members
- Birottam Dutta
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
- Thanked: 214 times
- Followed by:19 members
- GMAT Score:740
B cannot be a conclusion because we do not know whether this is a one off case or something that is happening on a routine basis. So, B cannot be the conclusion.
On the basis of what has been stated in the question stem, only C can be inferred to be correct. Since the vase is being pulverized, it will no longer be on display.
D cannot be inferred again because it is a one off thing.
E is out of scope.
A is again incorrect because the passage does not talk about this in the passage.
Let me know if I am right.
On the basis of what has been stated in the question stem, only C can be inferred to be correct. Since the vase is being pulverized, it will no longer be on display.
D cannot be inferred again because it is a one off thing.
E is out of scope.
A is again incorrect because the passage does not talk about this in the passage.
Let me know if I am right.
Folks please check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7p56NzAVKc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7p56NzAVKc
Hi Birottam,Birottam Dutta wrote:B cannot be a conclusion because we do not know whether this is a one off case or something that is happening on a routine basis. So, B cannot be the conclusion.
On the basis of what has been stated in the question stem, only C can be inferred to be correct. Since the vase is being pulverized, it will no longer be on display.
D cannot be inferred again because it is a one off thing.
E is out of scope.
A is again incorrect because the passage does not talk about this in the passage.
Let me know if I am right.
In this question, how should one proceed if one does not know the meaning of "pulverize"?
- KapTeacherEli
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
- Thanked: 136 times
- Followed by:62 members
You can figure out the word from context--if whatever they are doing leaves "dust" to be spectroscopically analyzed, in all likelihood it will damage (if not completely destroy!) the vase, which is enough to reach the correct conclusion.optimist wrote:Hi Birottam,Birottam Dutta wrote:B cannot be a conclusion because we do not know whether this is a one off case or something that is happening on a routine basis. So, B cannot be the conclusion.
On the basis of what has been stated in the question stem, only C can be inferred to be correct. Since the vase is being pulverized, it will no longer be on display.
D cannot be inferred again because it is a one off thing.
E is out of scope.
A is again incorrect because the passage does not talk about this in the passage.
Let me know if I am right.
In this question, how should one proceed if one does not know the meaning of "pulverize"?
By the way, this might help you with this question type in general: https://blog.kaplangmat.com/2012/07/11/ ... ns-part-1/
- umeshpatil
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:23 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
We need to find the conclusion which is most correct one.
Premise:
Museum display only objects which are UNDAMAGED & AUTHENTIC. As they are doubtful about origin of vase. So, to prove the authenticity, it needs to be pulverized. During the process, vase needs to be damaged. If it gets damaged, cannot be displayed in museum. Conclusion is that it can be displayed in museum. (Objects that can be proven authentic without damaging can be displayed in museum.)
Option B is repeating whatever mentioned in the argument. Doubts about vase will obviously be accompanied by questions.
Pulverization: It's scientific process that finds out when vase is produced. Some processes like Carbon dating are carried out. This this process, object needs to be damaged.
Premise:
Museum display only objects which are UNDAMAGED & AUTHENTIC. As they are doubtful about origin of vase. So, to prove the authenticity, it needs to be pulverized. During the process, vase needs to be damaged. If it gets damaged, cannot be displayed in museum. Conclusion is that it can be displayed in museum. (Objects that can be proven authentic without damaging can be displayed in museum.)
Option B is repeating whatever mentioned in the argument. Doubts about vase will obviously be accompanied by questions.
Pulverization: It's scientific process that finds out when vase is produced. Some processes like Carbon dating are carried out. This this process, object needs to be damaged.
- KapTeacherEli
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
- Thanked: 136 times
- Followed by:62 members
Not quite! There's nothing scientific about pulverization; it just means "reducing to dust"!umeshpatil wrote: Pulverization: It's scientific process that finds out when vase is produced. Some processes like Carbon dating are carried out. This this process, object needs to be damaged.
- vk_vinayak
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pm
- Thanked: 99 times
- Followed by:21 members
I had narrowed it down to B and C. I didn't know the meaning of pulverize either. As the question stem had mentioned "undamaged objects of proven authenticity" I thought pulverize could mean something related to damaging.optimist wrote:Hi Birottam,Birottam Dutta wrote:B cannot be a conclusion because we do not know whether this is a one off case or something that is happening on a routine basis. So, B cannot be the conclusion.
On the basis of what has been stated in the question stem, only C can be inferred to be correct. Since the vase is being pulverized, it will no longer be on display.
D cannot be inferred again because it is a one off thing.
E is out of scope.
A is again incorrect because the passage does not talk about this in the passage.
Let me know if I am right.
In this question, how should one proceed if one does not know the meaning of "pulverize"?
Then I turned to B to see if I can somehow eliminate it. B mentions 'provenance of many of the items' while we are discussing about only one item. I eliminated B.
- VK
I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:50 pm
- Location: New Delhi
- Thanked: 35 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:800
Focus on two lines:
Doubts have been raised about the origins of a supposedly Mycenaean vase currently on display in the museum's antiquities wing.
& what mention in ans b
Museum A has been beset with questions about the provenance of many of the items
in its antiquities wi
The doubt is for one and there isnt anything about manyof the items
Doubts have been raised about the origins of a supposedly Mycenaean vase currently on display in the museum's antiquities wing.
& what mention in ans b
Museum A has been beset with questions about the provenance of many of the items
in its antiquities wi
The doubt is for one and there isnt anything about manyof the items