Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion CR

[christina.susie.wong]

Question: Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion of the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devistated by earthquakes. Archeologists hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to occur near the island in AD 365.

What strenghtens the hypothesis?
B: no cooins minted after AD 365 were found in Kourion but coins minted before were in abundance
C: Most modern histories mention an earthquake occurred in AD 365.

I didn't know how to elimate C and D can you help me analyze why I should have elimated C and D because I was left with BCD as answers and chose D? I didn't catch onto B until I reviewed it afterwards, during the test I thought it was irrelevant but now I see that it shows nothing was created on Kourion after AD 395.

but with C I liked it because it reiterated that an earthquake did occur during that time so it shows that the earthquake affected Kourion.

[RonPurewal]

please read the forum rules: you must post the ENTIRE problem, including all five answer choices.

in addition, you have asked several questions about choice (d), but you haven't even posted that choice!

please re-post the full question, including all of the answers, per the forum rules.
thanks.

[chandran.sharat]

*

[sandeep.19+man]

Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes. Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D.365. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists’ hypothesis?

(A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessels that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D.365 were also found in several graves near Kourion.

(B) No coins minted after A.D.365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.

(C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occurred near the island in A.D.365.

(D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D.300 and 400 were found in Kourion.

(E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyprus after A.D.365 were found in Kourion.


My question is:
(b) states that no coins were minted after 365 AD. But this doesnt necessarily mean that there was an earthquake.

(c) states that there was an earthquake. But this doesnt imply that there was any destruction.

Arent both statements equally flawed? What gives (b) the edge?

[sandeep.19+man]

After doing my rounds, I came back to the problem and this is what I think.

The text says "Excavation revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes." Thus we already know that the destruction was due to an earthquake. All we need to do is confirm the time frame. Hence (B)

Tutors?

Thank you.

[tim]

Good analysis. All C does is reconfirm that there was an earthquake - something we already know from the problem. Remember the correct answer to a strengthen question will not be something that simply restates a premise..

[arogersj]

There are many similar CR questions that deal with timing of events. Here is my logic for this and similar question types:

We're told that an earthquake happened and that archaeologists think the earthquake destroyed a town.

Incidentally I got caught up on this becuase I assumed that earthquakes do not necessarily completely destroy things. This outside information is wrong to consider - it's important to take the statements very literally.

So the correct answer will tell us that the earthquake did infact destroy the town.

Choice (B) tells us that there were people in the town before AD 365 and suggests that the town wasn't occupied after AD 365. Therefore, the earthquake did destroy the town.

Take away: Keep it simple.

[RonPurewal]

Take away: Keep it simple.

yep.

notice the underlying theme here: the way in which you should read "strengthen" and "weaken" passages is totally different from the way in which you should read "assumption" passages!

--

when you read "strengthen" and "weaken" passages, you don't have to pay much attention to nitpicky details.
this is so because you're not attacking the structure of the argument itself; in these questions, you're introducing a further consideration, OUTSIDE the scope of the current argument, that will either strengthen or weaken the argument.

therefore, if you see
Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion of the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes
on a STRENGTHEN / WEAKEN question, your job is only to get the main gist of this statement: i.e., you can just read this as "An earthquake destroyed Kourion."

on the other hand, if you see
Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion of the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes
on a FIND THE ASSUMPTION question, your job includes paying attention to all the stupid little details.
so, in that case, you would actually have to pay attention to issues like "Could any other type of disaster produce the same sort of debris and collapsed buildings?", and other nitpicky detail-oriented issues that are beside the point in a strengthen/weaken type question.

[rohan.nanda]

Take away: Keep it simple.

yep.

notice the underlying theme here: the way in which you should read "strengthen" and "weaken" passages is totally different from the way in which you should read "assumption" passages!

--

when you read "strengthen" and "weaken" passages, you don't have to pay much attention to nitpicky details.
this is so because you're not attacking the structure of the argument itself; in these questions, you're introducing a further consideration, OUTSIDE the scope of the current argument, that will either strengthen or weaken the argument.

therefore, if you see
Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion of the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes
on a STRENGTHEN / WEAKEN question, your job is only to get the main gist of this statement: i.e., you can just read this as "An earthquake destroyed Kourion."

on the other hand, if you see
Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion of the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes
on a FIND THE ASSUMPTION question, your job includes paying attention to all the stupid little details.
so, in that case, you would actually have to pay attention to issues like "Could any other type of disaster produce the same sort of debris and collapsed buildings?", and other nitpicky detail-oriented issues that are beside the point in a strengthen/weaken type question.

Ron, you're explanations are so awesome. I'm a fan. :)

[tim]

so am i! :)

[AbhilashM94]

Ron,

Would you say that Inference/Conclusion questions are also to be solved by Assumption - Nitpicky small details towards formal logic?

[jlucero]

Ron,

Would you say that Inference/Conclusion questions are also to be solved by Assumption - Nitpicky small details towards formal logic?

No. Find the conclusion type questions follow strict logic, where you need to find things that HAVE to be true. Don't stray from what's given. Think of these problems as rephrasing or recombining the facts in a certain way.
A= B ; B = C; A = ???

With strengthen/weaken the conclusion, you're looking to find assumptions and attack/support those assumptions. That's when you can look for outside information that is relevant to the argument
A + ??? = C

[RonPurewal]

Nothing whatsoever should be "nitpicky".

If you have reviewed a CR problem thoroughly enough, you should be at a point where ALL of the wrong answers are VERY clearly—even obviously—wrong.

There should never be any CR choices that are "really close to being correct".
For instance, if you're dealing with a "weaken" question, then only one answer choice will weaken the argument at all. All four of the incorrect answers will either strengthen the argument or else do nothing at all.

At first, you may find this difficult to swallow. ("Well, OK, so why aren't all the questions super easy, then?")
To reconcile this surprising notion with the fact that some CR problems are, indeed, hard, you just need to realize the true source of the difficulty. The true source of the challenge doesn't lie in the logic or the functionality of the problems at all; it lies in taking a giant, lifeless wall of text, and personalizing it enough to have intuition about it.

[Crisc419]

Nothing whatsoever should be "nitpicky".

If you have reviewed a CR problem thoroughly enough, you should be at a point where ALL of the wrong answers are VERY clearly—even obviously—wrong.

There should never be any CR choices that are "really close to being correct".
For instance, if you're dealing with a "weaken" question, then only one answer choice will weaken the argument at all. All four of the incorrect answers will either strengthen the argument or else do nothing at all.

At first, you may find this difficult to swallow. ("Well, OK, so why aren't all the questions super easy, then?")
To reconcile this surprising notion with the fact that some CR problems are, indeed, hard, you just need to realize the true source of the difficulty. The true source of the challenge doesn't lie in the logic or the functionality of the problems at all; it lies in taking a giant, lifeless wall of text, and personalizing it enough to have intuition about it.

ron, you said "All four of the incorrect answers will either strengthen the argument or else do nothing at all".
but there are indeed some choices which support or weaken less compared to the correct chioce.

[RonPurewal]

there shouldn't be.