Question is asking for an assumption. How is E an assumption? Isn't that more like a flaw in the argument or a question like 'if true, which of these would undermine the argument'? Assumption should be D- they are assuming that the table is so big that it will still be containing 1000 rings.

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived 1,000 years was recently claimed to be made from that of a much younger tree.


Honestly, I do not know what this statement is saying ( I am in the shoes of a student, for instance). However, I only know that a tree or a similar thing is 1000 years old.


In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Ok. We wanna to prove the previous statement and the tree is at least 1000 years old. Which means > = 1000



Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk.


One year, one ring in the trunk

Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

This technique is sure to assert if the tree has more than 100 years, considering that it gives us an accurate result up to 200 years

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

A. The craftsman has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.

That they didn't use the same piece of wood in other works is not our assumption

B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.

When the tree was cut down is not our assumption. We care about of the rings and what they say us.

C. The craftsman worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.

How many hours they worked for, is irrelevant. Even 24 hours

D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of 1,000 tree rings.

Bingo. To know if the tree lived more than 100 years, the table (which is basically an excerpt of the tree) must contain in it a span of 1,000 tree rings

E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.

If this technique is inaccurate for other purposes is not our concern right now for our assumption.


Hope this helps
_________________

So the answer should be D right?

That's what I got too.

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived 1,000 years was recently claimed to be made from that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
A. The craftsman has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.
The passage did not mention about the craftsman's other crafts from this same tree.
B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.
This is the conclusion of the passage.
C. The craftsman worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.
The passage did not mention how long it would take to complete the table.
D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of 1,000 tree rings.
Answer. The author assumed that the table has at least 1000 rings, otherwise the conclusion that the table is at least 1000 yrs old would not be true.
E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.
If Dendrochronology is inaccurate, the conclusion is rendered wrong.

Hi Carcass, thank you for the revised answer and explanation. Can you please edit the OA too?

Sorry for my mistake in the OA

Fixed
_________________

Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.