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

Redeem

Gold Mining

Expert replies
by yangliu0401 » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:52 am
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher’s samples must have been inaccurate.

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

A. The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.
B. The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.
C. The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.
E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by nitya34 » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:16 am
IMO E makes sense
can anyone explain using Negation pls
Join the discussion

by bmlaud » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:12 am
IMO D

Negate the assumption: Frobisher had soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content. If this is true then the method of determinig gold content may be correct, in that case the conclusion " method of determining gold content must have been inaccurate" is weakened.
"Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance."
Join the discussion

by yangliu0401 » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:39 am
I think both D&E are Ok. While I can not figure out which is better. Can anyone state?
Join the discussion

by cramya » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:54 am
D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.


Negate we get : Frobisher did have soil samples from other Canadian island examined for gold content. Ok so what. This does not wekan the conclusion that Frobisher’s methods for examining samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island must have been inaccurate


E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined

CORRECT

Negate this

Gold was added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined. This would mean that Frobisher’s methods used to determine the gold content of his samples must have been accurate (had gold coentent) and hence the conclusion is weakened.

This must be an assumption for the argument to stand.

Regards,
CR
Join the discussion

by yangliu0401 » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:08 pm
cramya wrote:D. Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.


Negate we get : Frobisher did have soil samples from other Canadian island examined for gold content. Ok so what. This does not wekan the conclusion that Frobisher’s methods for examining samples from Canada’s Kodlunarn Island must have been inaccurate


E. Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined

CORRECT

Negate this

Gold was added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined. This would mean that Frobisher’s methods used to determine the gold content of his samples must have been accurate (had gold coentent) and hence the conclusion is weakened.

This must be an assumption for the argument to stand.

Regards,
CR
I see. Thx alot! :)
Join the discussion

by bmlaud » Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:15 am
Yea agree with Cramya, option E makes more sense.

Thanks
"Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance."
Join the discussion

by vanessa.m » Sat May 14, 2016 2:47 am
E seems to be the best choice here
Join the discussion