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

Redeem

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary

by BTGmoderatorDC » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:27 am
From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia was established around 1000 B.C. However, new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older: tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn from the new evidence?

(A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement

(B) The pieces of pottery and fragments of statues that were analyzed come from several parts of the site

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber

(D) The site has yielded many more samples of pottery and statuary than of building timber

(E) The type of pottery found at the site is similar to a type of pottery associated with civilizations that existed before 1000 B.C.

Can someone explain the best Option?

OA A
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Global
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by elias.latour.apex » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:22 am
We begin critical reasoning problems by reading the question. In this case we are asked to undermine the conclusion drawn from the evidence.

What is that conclusion? It is: "The settlement is considerably older."

Why do we think so? Because a piece of building timber that has been unearthed is older than the pottery and statuary.

What's the assumption? The assumption is that the timber is a better indicator of the real age of the settlement than the pottery and statuary are. We will be looking to attack this assumption in order to weaken the conclusion.

Answer choice (A), the credited response, tells us that there is evidence to suggest that the timber in question actually came from a different, earlier settlement. This directly attacks the assumption.

Answer choice (B) suggests that the pottery analyzed comes from different parts of the site. This does not directly tell us whether the pottery or the timber is the best indicator of settlement age.

Answer choice (C) tells us that the tests devised to determine the age of the pottery are more recent than those used to determine the age of the timber. However, this does not give us any indication that one or the other of the tests is inaccurate.

Answer choice (D) tells us that more pottery has been found than timber. Again, this does not indicate whether the age of the pottery is more relevant to determining the age of the settlement than that of the timber.

Answer choice (E) suggests that the pottery is like older pottery. Even if this is true and if the pottery is actually older than tests indicate, this does not weaken the conclusion. If anything, it strengthens it.
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1