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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

War- lets see who wins!!!!

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:01 am
Thanked: 2 times
by rajatvmittal » Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:17 am
In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:13 amFollowed by: 13 members
Thanked: 46 times
GMAT Score:700

by hemant_rajput » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:05 am
rajatvmittal wrote:In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
IMO is C.

In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. This statement means their success doesn't depend whether they are going for offense or defense but on their strategy. Although, C suggest the chances of winning when going offensive.

what is OA?
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 amFollowed by: 4 members
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Thanked: 16 times
GMAT Score:650

by tisrar02 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:41 am
IMO option A.

We want to weaken the conclusion that knights did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success. Well A says that Knights had no knowledge of whether they would be defending the land or be on the offensive. If this is the case, Knights would not know where to position themselves thus we can not conclude that location is not relevant.

OA and Source???
Last edited by tisrar02 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dedication is what leads to success...
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pmFollowed by: 4 members
Thanked: 17 times
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:43 am
I'd go with A. If the knights did not whether they'd be invading or defending then we can't say they regarded location of battle irrelevant.

What is the source and OA?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:01 am
Thanked: 2 times

by rajatvmittal » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:31 am
Answer A

Veritas
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 amFollowed by: 2 members
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 16 times
GMAT Score:760

by nisagl750 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:03 pm
whats wrong with D?

Since Nobles used to decide the location, knights would not know where to position themselves thus it can't be concluded that location is irrelevant.

Experts???

-nisagl
----------------------------
If I make mistakes please correct them
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:04 am

by Practicegmat » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:48 pm
please explain in more details why (A) is correct ? I marked E:(
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:22 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 1 times

by saurabhdhakad » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:40 pm
Waiting for an expert's reply on this question :!:
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:13 amFollowed by: 4 members
Thanked: 50 times

by rakeshd347 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:14 am
rajatvmittal wrote:In the feudal system, nobles typically hired knights to prepare for the possibility of battle. When battles occurred, nobles led their knights either in invading surrounding lands, or in defending against the invasion of their lands from surrounding nobles. In training for success in battle, knights, unlike nobles, planned strategies that did not depend on an offensive or defensive position. Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land.
In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers.
Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles.
Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands.
Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment.
Our aim here is to weaken the argument and the best way to weaken the argument is by attacking the central assumption of the argument.

Now in this argument author is saying that Knights, then, did not regard the location of battle as relevant to success.
Now here author is assuming that knights knew about the location and they intentionally didn't regard the location of the battle as relevant to success. What if Knights didn't even know about the location then the assumption will be broken and the argument will fall apart.

Now a simple analogy for this argument would be something like this: John walks to his work everyday even though his work is 5Km away from his home. So John likes walking. Now in the above simple argument author is assuming that john have other alternative such as car or public transport of something. If we have to weaken the above argument we can say "what if john doesn't have a car or any other sort of medium to travel". Then authors argument will be weaken to some extent. May be John doesn't like to walk but he doesn't have any other choice but to walk.

I hope this helps.

In the original sentence option D doesn't weaken the argument. It basically doesn't do anything atall. It just adds more info for General knowledge I believe :) because author is making conclusion about knights and option D talks about Nobles.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:46 am

by Nitin.811g » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:57 am
A. In making battle plans, knights, unlike nobles, had no knowledge of whether they would be invading or defending land. ---> This means that the knights did not consider the location not because they thought it was less important but because they never knew about the location when the strategy was laid out. Hence it could be a potential answer

B.In the feudal system, it was clear when a battle was successful because the winners received land from the losers. ---> Irrelevant

C.Knights were as likely to be successful in an offensive battle as were nobles. ---> Irrelevant

D. Nobles made decisions about the location of battle based on prior movements of nobles from surrounding lands. . ---> The strategy could be made post knowing the location and hence it does not weaken the conclusion

E.Knights planned strategies for success in battle that depended on the ability of their nobles to provide equipment. . ---> But it does not talk about the location not important

Based on above analysis, IMO, A should be the OA.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:21 pmFollowed by: 5 members
Thanked: 3 times

by Anaira Mitch » Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:14 am
Can any expert comment on this question?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1