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.
War- lets see who wins!!!!
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:01 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- hemant_rajput
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:13 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:13 members
- GMAT Score:700
IMO is C.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.
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.
- tisrar02
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 am
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:650
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???
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...
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
- Thanked: 17 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:720
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?
What is the source and OA?
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:01 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- nisagl750
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 am
- Location: New Delhi
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:760
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
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
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:04 am
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:22 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 1 times
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:13 am
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:4 members
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.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.
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.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:46 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.
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.
- Anaira Mitch
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:21 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:5 members