European traders

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members

European traders

by aj5105 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:21 pm
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: European traders

by BlindVision » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:11 pm
aj5105 wrote:Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
IMO=B

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

Conclusion: However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Life is a Test

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Hull, UK
Thanked: 1 times

by aspirant_gmat » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:00 am
Hi!

Is B the correct answer?

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:09 pm

by kris_hansy » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:14 am
I would like to go with C. It eliminated the possibility that the European goods might have been present in the camps but were destructed with time. Hence, it implies that
No European goods found = No European goods traded, hence the camp belonged to an era before 1630's.

Please post the OA.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:00 am
I would go with B as well. I don't think C can be correct since there is a 10 year gap between European arrival and the supposed dating of this camp.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:45 am
Thanked: 5 times

by syr » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:42 am
yes IMO too B) strengthens the argument that "the camp probably dates to no later than 1630"

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 am
Location: India
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:710

Re: European traders

by rahulg83 » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:40 pm
aj5105 wrote:Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
IMO B too..plz post OA

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:10 pm
IMO - B

OA please

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:55 pm
kris_hansy wrote:I would like to go with C. It eliminated the possibility that the European goods might have been present in the camps but were destructed with time. Hence, it implies that
No European goods found = No European goods traded, hence the camp belonged to an era before 1630's.

Please post the OA.
I believe that "C" actually weakens the argument, not strengthen it.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

If the European trade goods were considered especially valuable and it was preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction , then there should still be remains...

However, as the conclusions states: no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Life is a Test

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:57 pm
GMAT Score:650

by matanga » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:42 pm
I'd like to go with B as well. If yo are trying to prove the item cannot be dated beyond 1630 because there is no indication of European goods, then you can strengthen this by knowing camps in the same area have been accurately dated to the late 1620s because European remains have been found. Since the camp in question has no European remains and it is clear a camp that has European remains can be dated to the late 1620s, it follows that the camp must be older than those accurately dated.

Hope this helps!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by Sharma_Gaurav » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:55 pm
i picked B as well

For the same reason as pointed above.
if no european goods tools are found in all reliable dating then it ver well strrengthens the conclusion.

Choice C does not seem to effect the argument as C says * goods are preserved * but they are not found in the dating . may be it rather weakens the argument

Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:47 pm
Ron i somewhere feel that my comprehension of B is confusing me !!
B says :At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

now what is disturbing me is the phrase dated to the late 1620's
what does it mean ? to me it means the following dates :1625 ;1626;1627;1628 and 1629
though i feel that if that is what that phrase in B meant then its getting somewhat difficult to appreciate B as an answer
however if that phrase in B meant all the years later of 1620 till, lets say, 1755 then i can understand how B is the answer
i strongly feel that the language of B should have been as follows :
At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated 1620 onwards , remains of European trade goods have been found.
if i am not able to put across my doubt to u then plz read the following
to me the following sentence : i was in Vegas in late 1990's means that i was in Vegas somewhere in 1995 to 1999 not 1990 onwards !!
similarly in option B : the phrase "late 1620 " means from 1625 to 1629
i feel that this phrase sud have been later of 1620 or 1620 onwards

PS : i am not questioning the OA .plz correct me if my comprehension of that phrase (late 1620's ) is faulty .

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 Feb 19, 2013 5:59 am
aditya8062 wrote:Ron i somewhere feel that my comprehension of B is confusing me !!
B says :At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

now what is disturbing me is the phrase dated to the late 1620's
what does it mean ? to me it means the following dates :1625 ;1626;1627;1628 and 1629
though i feel that if that is what that phrase in B meant then its getting somewhat difficult to appreciate B as an answer
however if that phrase in B meant all the years later of 1620 till, lets say, 1755 then i can understand how B is the answer
i strongly feel that the language of B should have been as follows :
At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated 1620 onwards , remains of European trade goods have been found.
if i am not able to put across my doubt to u then plz read the following
to me the following sentence : i was in Vegas in late 1990's means that i was in Vegas somewhere in 1995 to 1999 not 1990 onwards !!
similarly in option B : the phrase "late 1620 " means from 1625 to 1629
i feel that this phrase sud have been later of 1620 or 1620 onwards

PS : i am not questioning the OA .plz correct me if my comprehension of that phrase (late 1620's ) is faulty .
answer choice (b) actually supports the idea that the camp is older than the late 1620s -- i.e., before the given dates.
since the conclusion is "no later than 1630" (i.e., 1630 or older) -- a weaker statement than the one that's actually justified -- it, too, is supported.

as usual, the best way to explain is by analogy.

James doesn't grow facial hair. Therefore, he is probably no more than 14 years old.

choice (b): Every boy I know who is 13 or older can grow facial hair.
--> if this is true, then it actually supports the idea that james is younger than 13.
but, if we support the claim that james is younger than 13, then at the same time we're also supporting the (more inclusive) claim that he's 14 or younger.
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

Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:43 pm
Ron million thanks for ur reply .but what is bothering me the comprehension of option B

B says :B says :At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

now whats troubling me is the phrase dated to the late 1620's


To me it means the following dates :1625 ,1626,1627,1628 and 1629 .my point is that if these are the dates that this phrase meant then how can we be sure for lets say 1635 . i mean ,with the help of B i can be sure that from from 1625 to 1629 European goods were found but i cannot be sure if European goods were also found in 1635 and so it might be a case that this site that we talking might fall into 1635

plz tell me what are the dates that are covered by option B ? does B means all the dates 1620 onwards or does it mean the dates that i have comprehended (1625 ,1626,1627,1628 and 1629 ) coz if former is the case then i agree that option B syd be the answer .

thanks and regards

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:05 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by ngalinh » Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:14 am
aj5105 wrote:Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.


This question is tempting because something confused in it. So I decide to give a try :)

I think B looks like the best of 5 answer choices, but it's questionable.

The reasoning of the question starts from: "...However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward."

I restate the reasoning like this:

Because:
- (A) no European trade goods were found at the site,
- (B) and European traders were active in the region BEFORE 1630 (= from the 1620's onward)

So conclude: (C) the camp probably dates FROM 1630 or AFTER (=no later than 1630).

1/ First, I think we have to discuss the meaning of "no later than" here.
Normally, "no later than 1630" = "not after 1630" (if my English understanding is not wrong)
But in this case: "no later than 1630" must = 1630 or after.

- Why? Because:
If we imagine the year of 1630 as origin 0, the time of (A) and the time of (C) must stand to the right of 0 - inclusive 0 (or the same side), and (B) stands alone to the left of 0.

---------(B)-------1630---(A)-(C)--------

I read the diagram like this: "the camp may appeared from 1630 or after --because the camp didn't have European goods --because European traders NOT THERE (after 1630)" → sounds okay!

- If the time of (C) stands to the same side the time of (B), the diagram would be read like this: "the camp may appeared from 1630 or after --because the camp didn't have European goods --because European traders THERE" → the statement is illogical → we can stop discuss.

--> So the reasoning would be as I mentioned above.



2/ Find a strengthener:

Some assumptions of the argument are:

- 1st: There was no European (E) goods that Native American camps often used left in the region after E traders stopped trading in the region.

- 2nd: Some of E goods were necessary goods that Native American camps near Dumaw Creek had to use during 1620's.

- 3rd: No other people bring E goods to the region after E traders gone.

- 4th: The evidence of E goods & E traders' activities are more reliable than the evidence of animal bones (to determine camp's date)

3/ Examine answer choices:

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.

--> A is out of scope, is neither strengthen nor weaken. We just care if E goods would be traded in the region AFTER E traders gone.

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

--> B doesn't support "the camp probably dates FROM 1630 or AFTER". However, B weakens the argument. (it weakens the 1st assumption)

Because if E goods still remained, who assured that Native American camps hadn't used them, and the camp mentioned in the argument may be one of those using E goods remaining. --> the camp can date any time either during 1620s or after those years! If the camp had not used when it had conditions to use, the author would fail to reach the conclusion.

If the reasoning were: E goods were brought to the region after 1630, so the author concludes that a camp dates before 1630 because there is no E goods found there, it'd be understandable.

On the other hand, B would support the argument if the conclusion were "the camp probably dates DURING 1620's"


(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.

--> C also weakens the argument.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.

--> D is out of scope. Who knows what time E explorers came in (no use knowledge outside the question)

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.

--> E is out of scope. Nothing to deal with 3 "elements" (A-B-C).

4/ My conclusion: there is no strengthener among the answer choices.

Hypothesis: whether there are some extra words or omitted words randomly appear in the statement and change the entire picture? Example: some important words, such as: "no", "were active/were not active", "before/after", "strengthen/weaken" "onward/backward"


Note: If someone see any flaw of my reasoning/my English understanding, I'll appreciate it. I'm eager to learn from you all.