GMATPrep CR: Archaeologists in Michigan

[RonPurewal]

If trader's goods were not found at the site then shouldn't the camp be of date before 1620.

if the camp is from before 1620, then "no later than 1630" is satisfied.
(analogy: i was born in the 1970's. was i born "no later than 1994"? yes, i was.)

[aditya8062]

Ron i somewhere feel that my comprehension of B is confusing me !!
B says :At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

now what is disturbing me is the phrase dated to the late 1620's
what does it mean ? to me it means the following dates :1625 ;1626;1627;1628 and 1629
though i feel that if that is what that phrase in B meant then its getting somewhat difficult to appreciate B as an answer
however if that phrase in B meant all the years later of 1620 till, lets say, 1755 then i can understand how B is the answer
i strongly feel that the language of B should have been as follows :
At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated 1620 onwards , remains of European trade goods have been found.
if i am not able to put across my doubt to u then plz read the following
to me the following sentence : i was in Vegas in late 1990's means that i was in Vegas somewhere in 1995 to 1999 not 1990 onwards !!
similarly in option B : the phrase "late 1620 " means from 1625 to 1629
i feel that this phrase sud have been later of 1620 or 1620 onwards

PS : i am not questioning the OA .plz correct me if my comprehension of that phrase (late 1620's ) is faulty .

[jnelson0612]

Ron i somewhere feel that my comprehension of B is confusing me !!
B says :At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.

now what is disturbing me is the phrase dated to the late 1620's
what does it mean ? to me it means the following dates :1625 ;1626;1627;1628 and 1629
though i feel that if that is what that phrase in B meant then its getting somewhat difficult to appreciate B as an answer
however if that phrase in B meant all the years later of 1620 till, lets say, 1755 then i can understand how B is the answer
i strongly feel that the language of B should have been as follows :
At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated 1620 onwards , remains of European trade goods have been found.
if i am not able to put across my doubt to u then plz read the following
to me the following sentence : i was in Vegas in late 1990's means that i was in Vegas somewhere in 1995 to 1999 not 1990 onwards !!
similarly in option B : the phrase "late 1620 " means from 1625 to 1629
i feel that this phrase sud have been later of 1620 or 1620 onwards

PS : i am not questioning the OA .plz correct me if my comprehension of that phrase (late 1620's ) is faulty .

Hi Aditya,
Yes, unfortunately this is one of those problems in which the wording will be more difficult to comprehend for a student who is not a native English speaker.

When the GMAT says something such as "dated to the late 1620s" it just means that testing has been done on the items and they have been identified as belonging to the time period of the late 1620s. As far as "late 1620s" goes, I agree with you that this means the period around 1626-1629. The period would be the later years of the "20s" decade, or in this case the 1620s decade. For example, if I said "In my late 20s I experienced career success" then it implies that around age 27-29 I experienced the career success.

I hope that this clears things up and please do let me know if we can provide further help.

:-)

[AbhilashM94]

Why is C wrong though?

If they had not preserved it the logic conclusion falls flat doesnt it?

[jlucero]

Why is C wrong though?

If they had not preserved it the logic conclusion falls flat doesnt it?

The argument says that the camp is pre-1630 since there were no European trade goods. The gap in logic is that anything that is post-1630 must have European trade goods. Otherwise a camp site from 1700 without European trade goods would be indistinguishable from one in 1620, since neither would have European trade goods. That's what B addresses.

However, we don't need to know whether all European trade goods would be considered valuable or preserved. Even if this is true, we might still find 1700 camp sites without those European trade goods. Just because they were preserved by those who had them, doesn't mean all would have them.

[subhojyoti.it]

Hi Ron,
I am in no way doubting the OA but i am doubting my understanding of the passage matter. Kindly correct me if i am mistaken

A. Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did---------->So Euro traders arrived at say (an 1621) but the good arrived (say dec' 1620). If that is the case then the camp could have produced those goods but it didn't. So under this impresion can we safely assume that the camp dated before december 1620 and thus before 1630?
B. Your example of tattoo is out of the world-as usual-
C. The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction------->Euro traders(jan 1621) brought goods ,those were perceived as valuable, that were not found-----> if those were valued and then not found at the site how can these be attributed to the conclusion?

I know i am a little confused here but i took this argument a little too seriously by now.

~thanks in advance for your kind reply

[RonPurewal]

the post directly above yours should address these concerns.

the point is that the argument is really missing just one thing: a connection between "trade goods came to the area" and "trade goods came to this camp".
that's the only major issue in the passage-- and neither (a) nor (c) does anything to close that gap.

[SHOUMODIPR218]

the post directly above yours should address these concerns.

the point is that the argument is really missing just one thing: a connection between "trade goods came to the area" and "trade goods came to this camp".
that's the only major issue in the passage-- and neither (a) nor (c) does anything to close that gap.

Hi Ron

I read the above post but m still confused. Pls correct the below approach I took for choosing the answer as C.

I chose option C, thinking that :
if the FIRST European products were considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction, then on excavations in the Native American Camp site must have been able to find it.
NOW since no such products were found in the campsite, doesn't it show that The CAMPSITE was before the Europeans came and therefore strengthens the argument.
Pls rectify my reasoning.

Regards
Shoum

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Well done for articulating your logic. Be aware of answer choices that strengthen the argument a little bit, since we're asked for the answer choice that most strengthens.

I can see a couple of problems with your logic. Sure, answer choice C states that the artifacts would have been 'preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction'. Now, the camp is around 400 years old, so there's no guarantee that the original inhabitants' attempts to preserve the artifacts were successful. Plus, an even bigger problem is that 'preserved from loss' could mean that the artifacts were removed from the camp as they were so valuable. This would actually mean that answer C weakens the argument.

The way to find a problem like this more straightforward is to read the argument critically. Genuinely, when I read this for the first time (just now), I thought "sure, there were no European goods found at the site, but perhaps that's just not because such goods were unavailable, but just because no-one at the site bought any". With that in mind, answer B clearly strengthens the argument.