OG 11th Edition, CR # D21

Metal rings recently excavated from seventh century settlements in the western pat of Mexico were using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists’ hypothesis?

(A) Whether Metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century
(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical
techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico



All, my diagramming is: Complex Techniques transferred from Ecuador --- western Mexico
( already in cultural contact).

Based on this statement, I chose C but the answer is A in OG. The explanation given in OG to discount C is very unconvincing. I argue that A is not the choice because: A talks about metal objects (boundary word) and also because it talks about trading. Compared to choice A, choice C talks about all the “right” stuff based on my diagram above namely, techniques, artisans, Ecuador to Mexico.

MY QUESTION: Can someone please explain why A is a better choice than C based on the diagramming I used or any other way he/she found to be useful?

Sorry for this rather lengthy question, but it really irks me when the GMAT strategies I have learned fall short in unraveling OG questions

Thanks,

MBA Applicant 2007/8, IIRC this question has been discussed in detail on this forum. Try searching for it.

When diagramming it's important to identify the conclusion. Here the conclusion is that



The premises are that

(1) Metal rings recently excavated from seventh century settlements in the western pat of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period

(2) These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely

(3) the people of these two areas were in cultural contact

The question is asking what information would be most useful in order to evaluate the argument. In other words, the question is asking you to identify the piece of information that would be most helpful, or most damaging, to the argument.

Let's think about (C) - "Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical
techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico".

Suppose that you find out that YES, the Mexicans could have learned from the Ecuadorans without leaving Mexico. So what? "Could have" doesn't mean that they did or did not. And anyway, the conclusion is about whether the Mexicans learned from the Ecuadorans, not whether they did so without leaving Mexico

Suppose you find out that NO, the Mexicans could not have learned from the Ecuadorans without leaving Mexico. So what? Maybe they learned from the Ecuadorans by traveling to Ecuador.

Thus, the information discussed in (C) is of little use in assessing the argument.

On the other hand, the information in (A) is useful. If you find out that YES, these objects were traded from Ecuador to Mexico, the argument is thereby strengthened. The new piece of information plugs a kind of hole in the argument - the vague reference to "cultural contact" does not make clear whether there was any exchange of metal goods or metallurgical information.

-Jad