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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have
[#permalink]
09 Dec 2018, 03:13
09 Dec 2018, 03:13
4
1
Expert Reply
7
Bookmarks
Question 1
00:00
Question Stats:
68% (02:00) correct
32% (02:09) wrong based on 185 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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.
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.
B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.
C. The craftsman worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.
D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain 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.
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have
[#permalink]
11 Dec 2018, 07:12
11 Dec 2018, 07:12
1
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.
Re: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have
[#permalink]
12 Dec 2018, 17:00
12 Dec 2018, 17:00
1
Expert Reply
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
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
