Last visit was: 22 May 2024, 18:43 It is currently 22 May 2024, 18:43

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28796
Own Kudos [?]: 33385 [7]
Given Kudos: 25270
Send PM
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 188
Own Kudos [?]: 142 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28796
Own Kudos [?]: 33385 [1]
Given Kudos: 25270
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2018
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [4]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have [#permalink]
4
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.
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 188
Own Kudos [?]: 142 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have [#permalink]
1
Carcass wrote:
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 \(\\geqslant 1000\)



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


Hi Carcass, thank you for the revised answer and explanation. Can you please edit the OA too?
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28796
Own Kudos [?]: 33385 [0]
Given Kudos: 25270
Send PM
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Sorry for my mistake in the OA :)

Fixed
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Oct 2018
Posts: 148
Own Kudos [?]: 179 [1]
Given Kudos: 27
Send PM
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have [#permalink]
1
Great question!!

Each passing year, the tree develops one ring, until it is taken down. Table is made from wood extracted from these trees. Dendrochronologists need to ascertain if the table's wood has at least 1000 rings to confidently date the table as 1000 years old.

What if the table's wood is not big enough to accommodate 1000 rings. What if it's small enough to have 500 rings only - The dating will be inaccurate.

Therefore, option D: The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of 1,000 tree rings, is an assumption that the paragraph depends on.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28796
Own Kudos [?]: 33385 [0]
Given Kudos: 25270
Send PM
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Sir please

In the end, what are you pointing out about the question? explain to me so I can come, possibly, in handy

I have also explained above
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Oct 2018
Posts: 148
Own Kudos [?]: 179 [0]
Given Kudos: 27
Send PM
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have [#permalink]
Carcass wrote:
Sir please

In the end, what are you pointing out about the question? explain to me so I can come, possibly, in handy

I have also explained above


There is nothing wrong with the question, in your explanation, the premise in the 9th line needs to be reviewed:

Premise: 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.

Your explanation: 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

My clarification: There is no mention of 100 yrs or 200 yrs in the paragraph. Instead of more than 100 years, it should be at least 1000 years and 200 should be changed to 2000.

And option D in 19th line also needs to be reviewed:

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

Your explanation: 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

My clarification: This should be changed to 1000 years because there is no mention of 100 years in the paragraph. The words 'more than' should also be omitted to avoid confusion.
Prep Club for GRE Bot
[#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Instructor
218 posts
GRE Instructor
1034 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne