1)

Understanding the Passage:

Conclusion: The regulator should increase the connection fee so that the financials of the new telecom operators improve and thereby, they
are able to better compete in the market.
Premises:
1. Connection fee is one of the sources of revenue for new companies
2. In Country Y, this connection fee, which is charged on a per minute basis, is stipulated by the regulator and thus, is same for every telecom
operator.
Background Information:
Definition of connection fee:
When a subscriber of one telecom operator calls another subscriber of different telecom operator, the destination telecom company (of the
receiving subscriber) charges a small connection fee to the originating telecom operator
Existing Market conditions:
1. Recently, in country Y, several new telecom operators have entered the market
2. Almost all of them are enticing customers by charging much lower call rates than are charged by the existing operators
We can see that the conclusion as stated above is not just a recommendation but also provides reasons to support the recommendation. So,
separating the reasons (or the premises) and the recommendation, we have the final structure of the argument as:
Conclusion: The regulator should increase the connection fee
Premises:
1. Increasing the connection fee will improve the financials of the new operators
2. Connection fee is one of the sources of revenue for new companies
3. In Country Y, this connection fee, which is charged on a per minute basis, is stipulated by the regulator and thus, is same for every telecom
operator.
4. Improved financials will help new telecom operators to better compete in the market
Now, with this understanding of the passage, lets move on to the questions:

Question 1:
In this question, we need to find a reason which suggests that the recommendation of the author would have the opposite effect than as
envisaged.
Pre-thinking:
Any statement that suggests that increasing the connection fee will deteriorate (opposite of improve) the financials of the new telecom
operators, could be an answer to this question.
Lets think of one instance each where each of the above could happen:
Increasing the connection fee will deteriorate the financials if it increases the net outflow of money from the new telecom companies. Since
as per the definition of connection fee, this is the charge paid when a telecom subscriber calls another telecom subscriber of different
company, more the number of outgoing calls (to other companies) from a telecom company, more is the outflow of funds.
So, if a telecom company has users who make more outgoing calls than the number of incoming calls, the company will have to shell out more
money, in case of increase in connection fee.
Analysis of Answer Choices:
Now, lets look at each of the answer choices:
A. The connection fee is such a small component of revenues of any telecom companies that no company could survive by just relying on
this. This doesnt suggest that an increase in connection fee will have a negative effect. It can only imply that an increase or decrease in
connection fee might not have much effect on the financials since it is such a small component of revenues. Therefore, this is not the correct
choice.
B. In the past, whenever regulator has been advised a course of action by an outside agency, the regulator has taken a completely opposite
action step. This is completely out of scope. The question stem is talking about a situation only when the recommendation is implemented;
if the regulator does something opposite, it is not relevant to the question. Besides, this option statement is talking about a past trend; not

something which is going to happen this time. Thus, Incorrect.

C. The financial health of a telecom company is determined by the total profits generated by the company, irrespective of the source of
revenues. Very similar to option A. It doesnt suggest that an increase in connection fee will have negative impact on financials. Therefore,
Incorrect.
D. Due to highly competitive call rates, the number of outgoing calls from an average user of a new telecom company is expected to be much
greater than the number of incoming calls. This is similar to our pre-thinking answer. If the number of outgoing calls is expected to be
greater than the number of incoming calls, increasing the connection fee will increase the losses of the new telecom companies and thus will
negatively impact their financial health. Therefore, this could be an answer. For complete surety, lets also look at the remaining option
choice.
E. Increase in the connection fee may be passed on by the companies to the end users, which may make consumers switch their existing
telecom company. Would all companies pass on the increase in costs to the customers or only the existing companies? If all the companies
pass on their costs, it may not have any impact on the new companies; if any, it could have a positive impact on new companies since they
have fewer customers who could shift.
So, the answer to this question is Option D.

Question 2:
In this question, we need to find out the assumption made by author.
To begin with, lets bring our argument structure here:
Conclusion: the regulator should increase the connection fee
Premises:
1. Increasing the connection fee will improve the financials of the new operators
2. Connection fee is one of the sources of revenue for new companies
3. In Country Y, this connection fee, which is charged on a per minute basis, is stipulated by the regulator and thus, is same for every telecom
operator.
4. Improved financials will help new telecom operators to better compete in the market
The main conclusion is the one stated above. However, if you look carefully, there are two intermediate conclusions made by the author in
arriving at the main conclusion.
Intermediate Conclusions:
The two intermediate conclusions are:
1. Increasing the connection fee will improve the financials of the new operators
2. Improved financials will help new telecom operators to better compete in the market
These two conclusions dont have any premises as such; they are in the form of if-then type conclusions.
1. The first conclusion can be written as If the connection fee is increased, then financials of the new telecom operators would improve
2. The second conclusion can be written as If the financials of the new telecom operators improve, then they will be able to better compete
in the market.
Now, the question asks us to find an assumption made by the author. In this case, there are assumptions made by the author for arriving at
each of these three conclusions and the correct answer choice could be from any of these assumptions.
Prethinking:
Lets prethink one assumption each for each of the three conclusions:
1. Conclusion: the regulator should increase the connection fee
Assumption: Regulator should take steps which increase competitiveness in the market.
2. Conclusion: If the connection fee is increased, financials of the new telecom operators would improve
Assumption: Number of minutes of incoming calls is greater than the number of minutes of outgoing calls, for the new telecom operators
3. Conclusion: If the financials of the new telecom operators improve, then they will be able to better compete in the market
Assumption: Given financials of the new telecom companies limit their ability to compete in the market.
So, here, we have found out three assumptions, all of which are valid.
Its important to note here that the idea of doing pre-thinking is not to get at the right answer but to assimilate all the information in the
passage. (However, it has been observed that with practice, one can pre-think answers majority of the times)

Analysis of Answer Choices:

Now, lets look at the option statements:
A. The regulator will most probably agree with the authors recommended course of action This is out of scope. Even though the author is
making a recommendation, it is not suggested in the passage that the recommendation will necessarily be implemented. Thus, Incorrect.
B. To improve the financials of the new companies, all the possible sources of revenues should be utilized in the best manner possible. It is
too general in nature all the possible sources of revenues should be utilized in the best manner possible. Even though the author is making
a recommendation about one source of revenue for the new companies, the given assumption is not required. Thus, Incorrect.
C. One of the goals of the regulator is to make the telecom market highly competitive, which will ensure consumer welfare This is close to
our first prethought assumption; however, it says that the goal is to make market highly competitive. High competition does not
necessarily be the goal; just an increase over the current competition is needed as a goal to justify the authors recommendation. Thus, this
statement is not a must be true statement for the conclusion to hold. Therefore, this is not an assumption.
D. Weak financials is one of the reasons which restrict the ability of the new companies to compete in the market. This is the same
assumption arrived for the third conclusion. This is necessary for the third conclusion to hold. If weak financials doesnt restrict the ability of
new companies to compete in the market, improving the financials will not help them to compete better in the market. Therefore, the third
conclusion will not hold in the absence of this statement. Therefore, this is a must be true statement for the conclusion to hold. Thus, this
is the answer choice.
E. New companies will not have to pay increased connection fee to the existing companies. This is against the information given in the
passage. The passage says that each company needs to pay the same connection fee. Therefore, Incorrect.
So, the answer to this question is Option D.

2)
Understanding the passage
Conclusion:
The attribution of depletion of Ozone layer to man-made chemicals is not true.
Premises:
1. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic
eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history
2. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them
In this case, premises 1 and 2 are set of dependent information pieces and comprise a single reason used by the author to arrive at the
conclusion. In essence, the reason is:
Ozone depleting chemicals produced by Mount Pinatubo is much greater (probably billion of times) than ozone depleting chemicals
(fluorocarbons) produced by mankind.
This reason is used to signal that man-made chemicals can only play an insignificant role in the depletion of Ozone layer.
Therefore, (Conclusion) Man-made chemicals cant be held responsible for ozone layer depletion.

Prethinking
As we can see, the argument is talking only in terms of the amount of ODC ( Ozone Depleting Chemicals), not in terms of their impact on the
ozone layer. This is a missing link that is needed to establish the correctness of the argument.
So, a statement like ODCs generated by volcanic eruptions have the same effect on the Ozone as ODCs generated by mankind, would
complete the argument.
However, this is not a must-be-true statement. Why? Because we know that the quantity of volcanic ODCs is probably billions of times greater
than man-made ODCs, therefore, even if volcanic ODCs have much less effect than man-made ODCs, our conclusion would still hold.
Therefore, our only requirement can be that volcanic ODCs have at least some effect on the Ozone layer.
However, why would ODCs be called so if they dont have any effect on Ozone layer. So, they have to have some impact. This leads me to
think that there are only two situations in which the argument won't hold:
1. Volcanic ODCs dont reach Ozone layer due to some reason (hypothetical)
a. Probably because due to their high temperature. they react with some chemical as soon as they reach atmosphere and this reaction snaps
their ability to deplete Ozone layer
b. Their chemical or physical properties is different from man-made ODCs and these properties prevent them from reaching Ozone layer
2. Volcanic ODCs cant deplete unless the depletion has been started by man-made ODCs. Suppose, Ozone layer exists in a very stable state
this state cannot be affected by volcanic ODCs. However, once man-made ODCs can start reactions with this stable state of Ozone and

deplete it, this makes the Ozone layer reactive even to Volcanic ODCs.
In both the situations above, our conclusion wont hold. Therefore, negation of either of the two statements could be a valid assumption and
therefore, answer to our question.

Analysis of Answer Choices

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. So what? We are concerned with the cause of depletion, not the timeframe. Incorrect.
B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a
molecule of fluorocarbons. As we analyzed in the pre-thinking, this is not required. Even if a molecule of volcanic chemical destroys much
less ozone than a man-made chemical, the conclusion will still hold. Therefore, this is not a must be true statement. Thus, Incorrect.
C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of
fluorocarbons produced by the companies This can be inferred from the passage. Therefore, this presents no new information and thus,
cannot be an assumption. Incorrect.
D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the
stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides. This is in line with our prethinking. If these volcanic ODCs dont
reach ozone layer, then the reasoning of the argument breaks down. Therefore, this is a must-be-true statement for the argument to
hold. Correct.
E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in
the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. Given this statement is in a negative form not more. Lets negate
it and see if the conclusion breaks down. We can see that even if rate is more important than the quantity, it doesnt impact the conclusion,
since we dont know whether slow rate depletes Ozone layer more or fast rate depletes more. Therefore, Incorrect.
Therefore, the answer choice is Option D.

3)
Argument Analysis
Conclusion:
The author recommends that voters vote for a party that backs the return of the gold standard in the country.
Premises (Reasons for support):
The reasons cited by the author for his recommendation are:
1. A gold standard restricts the ability of government to print money at will
2. A gold standard restricts the ability of government to spend more than it earns in tax revenue
3. The economy has historically performed best under a gold standard
Please note that these three premises are independent and one does not necessarily leads to other. I have seen some posts using one of these
premises to support the other premises. This is not the intention of the author as is clear from the grammatical structure used to present
these premises. The first two premises are separated by and and the third premise is introduced using besides. Therefore, these three are
INDEPENDENT and SEPARATE premises.
Background Information:
1. Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standard through which the value of the dollar was backed by gold reserves
and paper money could be redeemed for gold on demand
2. Since 1971, the United States dollar has been a fiat currency backed by "full faith and credit of the government and not backed by, valued
in, or convertible into gold.

Question Stem analysis and Prethinking

Which of the following data sets can be best used by the author of the above argument to further his conclusion?
So, we are looking for a data set which the author could use to substantiate his position. In this case, the author can support his position by
supporting ANY or ALL of his premises. To do that, we need data to compare the performance of the economy before and after 1971; i.e.
before and after the gold standard was done away with. The key is the comparison just getting data from one era (pre or post 1971 does not
help)

While in other strengthen questions, the correct option statement could introduce a new reason to support the conclusion, this cannot be the
case with this question. Why? Because all the option statements are data sets and until and unless the passage makes clear the relevance of
the data set, we cannot comment on the usability of the data set.
Any data set that the author can use to support any of his premises (cited reasons for support) would be a correct answer choice.
With these thoughts in mind, lets go over to the option statements.

Analysis of Answer Choices

A. Major economic indicators of United States since 1980 While economic indicators could be relevant to support his third premise, this choice
does not give us the ability to compare the performance before and after 1971. Without this comparison, we cannot strengthen the belief in
the third premise. Therefore this choice is INCORRECT.
B. Expenditure on education and healthcare from 1960 to 2000 As we can see, this data does not correspond to any of the premises. While some
of us may think that this data corresponds to the third premise which talks about performance of economy, the data set is too specific to two
sectors expenditure on any one or two sectors is determined not only by the economic performance but also a number of other factors such
as priorities of the government. Thus, this isINCORRECT.
C. Money printed by the government as proportion of the Gross Domestic Product from 1950 to 1970 I have seen some great discussion on the thread
for and against this option statement. First of all, the data is relevant, unlike Option B. The data corresponds to the first premise of the
author. However, the data set has a similar deficiency as in case of option A it only talks about one period in this case, it only talks about
period of gold standard currency. The premise says that
A gold standard restricts the ability of government to print money at will
Now, to back this up, the author has to present data which shows an increase in money printed as proportion of Gross Domestic Product, after
the fiat currency was introduced in 1971. Just knowing this data for period before 1971 wont help the cause of the author. Therefore, this
option is also INCORRECT.
D. Growth in the difference between the revenue and expenditure figures for the government for the last 100 years beginning from 1901. The data set is
relevant as it corresponds to the second premise of the author. Also, the time period captures both the period before and after 1971. This
data can be used by the author to support his premise 2 that the difference between revenue and expenditure of government became more
pronounced after gold standard was discontinued in 1971. Therefore, this option is CORRECT.
E. Economic growth in the country in 1971 and in 1972. Even though the data set is relevant as it corresponds to premise 3 but the time period is
too small to make any material support for premise 3. Therefore, this option is INCORRECT.

4)
Doubt of Economists:
The economists doubt that even if manufacturing companies like Jaguar can help increase UK exports, they cannot be a major source of new
jobs over the long term
Note the following two things in the conclusion:
1. It is about manufacturing companies. Jaguar is merely used as an example.
2. There is strong usage of word cannot.
We need to provide information that in the given context will strengthen the economists claim.
Given Context:
Car industry, which was stagnant for the last two years, is showing signs of revival.
This revival can help UK economy by increasing manufacturing output and exports.
It can also create high quality jobs.

Prethinking:
How could manufacturing companies not produce many jobs for UK, even with increasing exports and thus correspondingly increasing
manufacturing activity?
1. Prethinking Assumption 1: Manufacturing companies will outsource some of their jobs to other countries.
2. Prethinking Assumption 2: Manufacturing companies will become more efficient in usage of workforce so that an increase in production
may not translate into increase in employment.

Analysis of Answer choices:

A. The car industry does not create low-quality jobs. We are concerned about the number of jobs, not quality of jobs. If car industry creates
large number of high quality jobs, the economists doubt wont be supported. Thus, incorrect.

B. Even though Jaguars exports grew more than 20% in the last year, its number of employees grew only by 5%. This choice talks only about
Jaguar, while economists doubt pertains to the entire manufacturing sector. Even if we say that their doubt could be based on data from
single company, a 5% growth in employment is probably not a small growth. This still indicates that as exports will grow, so will employment.
Thus, this option is also inconsistent with the conclusion.
C. The car industry is a capital intensive industry and frequently goes through cycles of growth and recession. This does not even talk about
jobs. Thus, incorrect.
D. To succeed in the global manufacturing industry, a company has to be extraordinarily efficient, which means using the same workforce for
more production. Correct. This is right on track. This choice implies that to succeed in the global market (exports), a company needs to
produce more using the same workforce. Therefore, even if exports increase, this increase may not lead to a corresponding increase in jobs.
Thus, this statement supports the economists doubt.
E. US car companies are financially well off than their British peers and can cut down their prices to gain market share. Like option C, this
also doesnt talk about jobs. Thus, incorrect.

5)
UNDERSTANDING THE PASSAGE
1. As per a survey:
a. an average middle-aged person drive 2000 miles a year and almost all of them own a gasoline-run car
b. Most of these middle-aged guys would switch their cars to electric ones, if the costs of making the switch are not high
2. The government of Papula is planning to implement a plan that would allow all the current owners of gasoline-run cars to switch to electric
cars at a minimal cost.

UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION STEM

The given question is a weaken question; however the conclusion is not stated in the passage but is given in the question stem. Basically,
when we say that the conclusion is stated in the question stem, what we mean is that the statement that needs to be weakened is in the
question stem.
The relevant conclusion is:
The plan, as envisaged by the government of Papula, will be able to significantly reduce the air pollution in the country in the next five years.

PRE-THINKING
The author in this question makes predictions about the behavior of a population based on data from survey from a sample of the population
middle aged people. Hence, while making the prediction the author makes the assumption that the sample data must be representative of
the population data or the preferences of the sample must be representative of the preferences of the majority.
One easy to spot weak point of the argument is that the plan of the government is based on the data of only middle-aged persons whereas the
objective that needs to be achieved i.e. reduction in pollution will depend on other sections of population also. Besides, there is nothing to
suggest in the passage that middle-aged population is responsible for a large proportion of the total pollution in the country. Thus, we can
pre-think two weakeners for the given argument:
1. Any statement that suggests that other sections of population have preferences which are different from middle-aged population
2. Any statement that suggests that middle-aged population accounts for only a small proportion of the total population in the country

ANALYSIS OF ANSWER CHOICES

A. Though some of the citizens are concerned about the negative environmental impact of air pollution, they will not spend any extra money
to protect the environment. The success of the plan does not require each and every citizen to use the plan. There could be exceptions.
This kind of answer choice is one of common type of incorrect choices used by GMAT in weaken question type. Incorrect.
B. The budget deficit of the government of Papula is already at alarming levels, and any further increase in the deficit could lead to the
bankruptcy of the country. We are concerned with the impact of the plan on the pollution in the country. The impact the plan has on the
financial status of the country is not the concern of the argument. Incorrect.
C. Since Papula is an aging country, with more than half its population near retirement age, the chief consideration for a large number of its
citizens is the convenience to drive rather than the costs to do so. This statement actually captures both the weakeners that we came up
with during the pre-thinking stage. It not only tells that a majority of population is not middle-aged, it also tells that the majority of
population prefers convenience, something that the government has not taken into consideration while coming up with its plan.-. Therefore,
this statement weakens the conclusion. Correct.

D. In the last two decades, Papula has emerged as a major economic hub, leading to an increase in the living standard of its citizens and in
the number of cars in the region. This statement tell us that the number of cars have increased in the country. But as per the plan, these
cars would be replaced with electric ones and once that is done, the pollution should decrease, doesnt matter the number of cars.
Therefore, this option doesnt affect the conclusion. Incorrect.
E. Since people who dont own gasoline cars would not be benefitted from the proposed plan, they may strongly oppose the use of taxpayer
money on such a plan. Like option 2, this option also tries to cast a doubt on whether the plan can be implemented. However, within the
context of the conclusion, we are not concerned about such a thing. Incorrect.

6)
OA are B and B.

7)
Understanding the Argument
Conclusion
Earths age can be estimated by:
determining the increase in Progeny in earths atmosphere over the last 200 years and
using it to determine how many years it would have taken to reach current levels of Progeny
Premises
1. Radon gas is unstable because of its radioactive nature and continuously decays into Progeny
2. There was no Progeny at the time of earths formation

Prethinking
What is the fundamental assumption?
While making his claim, the author assumes that the rate of change of Progeny over the past 200 years is representative of the rate of change
of Progeny over the course of history of earth. If this is not the case, i.e. if the rate of change today is much lower or much higher than what
it used to be in the past, then the estimates would either be too high or too low.
You may go to the analysis of answer choices if the above makes sense to you. Otherwise, read below if you need more explanation.
Detailed description of how to Prethink
Prethinking in the given question is extremely difficulty unless one has a basic understanding of data representativeness, which basically
means that if a sample data is used to make predictions about a population, then the sample data must be representative of the population
data. (fundamental assumption)
Since this is pretty technical definition, lets take an example to understand this. At the end of this example, we will provide a weaken
question where the same principle has been used with a twist in a weaken problem.
Suppose you are given a task to estimate the population of a city. Suppose the city has 100 residential blocks. One way to find out the
population can be to go to each and every block and count the number of people in each of the blocks and then totaling them to find the
total population of the city.
Another way, and a much easier way is estimate the population rather than calculating the same. To do the same you go to, say, 4 residential
blocks and find out their populations and calculate the sum of populations in these residential blocks.
Then, the total population of the city can be estimated by multiplying 25 (i.e. 100/4) with the sum of population in these 4 residential blocks.
Do you think this method will work? What if you chose the 4 residential blocks which happen to be the most populous residential blocks in the
city? Would you get a correct estimate of the population in such a case?
The answer is No. You would get an estimate which is much higher than the actual population. Similarly, if you chose the least four populous
residential blocks, you would get an estimate which is much below the actual population.
Therefore, to get a correct estimate of the population of the city, you must select 4 residential blocks which have near average populations
of all the residential blocks. And if you choose residential blocks in such a way, your sample data (i.e. 4 residential blocks) would be a correct
representation of the population and the sample can be called as representative of the population.

Now, lets apply the same knowledge in the given question. If we are using the increase in the amount of Progeny in the last 200 years to
estimate the Earths age, then that increase should be representative of the increase that happens every 200 years. This is the assumption
required. If the increase in Progeny in the last 200 years is significantly different from such increases in the past, then we would have an
incorrect estimate. Therefore, one thing we need to evaluate is whether the increase in Progeny in the last 200 years is representative of
such increases since the beginning of the earth.
(A weaken question which uses the same understanding: gasoline-cars-in-papula-country-147427.html)

Analysis of Answer Choices

A. Whether the rate of decay of Radon into Progeny is different during day time and night time? This is irrelevant. Even if the rates are
different during day time from night time, it doesnt impact the estimate. Incorrect.
B. Whether Progeny is stable or gets converted into some other gas at constant rate? There are two cases to consider in this option
statement:
i. Progeny is stable: In this case, the estimate should work perfectly fine.
ii. Progeny gets converted into some other gas at constant rate
Since this conversion happens both during the last 200 years and the time since the formation of earth, it doesnt distorts the estimate. This
is because such constant conversion impact the increase in gas in the last 200 years in the same proportion as the increase in gas in the time
since the formation of earth. Thus, an estimate of the earths age, which would be calculated as below, will not be affected.
Earths Age: Total Amount of Progeny in the atmosphere currently*200/Increase in the amount of Progeny in the atmosphere in the last 200
years
Incorrect.
C. Whether there have been any changes in the atmosphere in the past century that have increased the radioactivity decay level of all
gases? As we discussed in the Pre-thinking stage, if this given option statement is true, last 200 years of data regarding increase in progeny
would not be representative of the time since the formation of Earth. Therefore, we need to find out the answer to this question to know
whether the data of increase of Progeny in the last 200 years can be used to estimate the Eaths age. Correct.
D. Whether there are methods, better than the method given, to estimate the earths age? We are not concerned with an answer to
this. Incorrect.
E. Whether amount of Radon or Progeny varies from region to region? Since we considering the earths atmosphere as a whole, even if
Progeny varies from region to region, it doesnt impact the estimate because we are taking into account all the regions. Incorrect.

8)
C

9)

10)
D

11)
The stock market has shorted HP stock in response to HP CEO Leo Apothekers decision to divest the tablet business to invest to achieve good
positions in great industries. Such myopic behavior indicates that the stock market is focused at short term results even when they come
at the expense of long term benefits. While HP could have made some money in the tablet market in the short term, it has no strategic
advantage in the tablet space and refocusing and investing the management focus on industries where HP does have a strategic advantage
will provide enduring profits in the long term.

A. The first is a position that the argument as a whole seeks to defend whereas the second is a position that is contested in the argument.
-- Second position is not contested in the argument, its the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion of the argument.
B. The first states the conclusion of the argument as a whole; the second states an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in order to support
the main conclusion.
-- Correct. First bold face is the main conclusion of the argument and second bold face acts as intermediate conclusion that supports the main
conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence against the position being opposed.
-- Argument doesnt oppose the first bold face, rather its the main conclusion of the argument.
D. The first states an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in order to support the conclusion of the argument as a whole; the 2nd states the
conclusion of the argument as a whole
-- The roles are reversed. First is main conclusion and second is the intermediate conclusion.
E. The first and second both state intermediate conclusions that are drawn in order to support jointly the conclusions of the argument as a
whole
-- First is main conclusion and second is the intermediate conclusion.

12)

Passage Analysis
(1) Consumer advocate: it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service
than lawyers who do not advertise. :This is a fact. In this statement the author of the argument (consumer advocate) talks about lawyers, in
a particular state, who advertise. As per this statement, these lawyers charge less for the service they advertise as compared to those
lawyers who do not advertise that service.
To understand this, think of lawyer A as someone who advertises his services for divorce cases. Then, according to the above mentioned
statement from the passage, chances are that lawyer A will charge less fee for this service than lawyer B who does not advertise her service
for divorce consultation.
(2) It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers
advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence.: This too is a fact that is based on a
past trend observed so far. Since there is a lot of information given in this statement, lets encapsulate its key-points. Main points from this
statement:
1.

In the past, the number of lawyers advertising their services increased every time in a particular situation

2.

The situation was: no conditions on the advertising of legal services

3.

The general result of the increase in lawyers advertising was that legal cost to consumers declined

(3) However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly
increase rather than further reduce consumers legal costs.: This is authors opinion about the repercussion of a situation. If you notice
carefully, the author has used the opposite direction key-word: However. This means whatever the authors going to state, it is not going to
be in the same line of thought as the previously mentioned fact. The author now says that in the absence of the state requirement to specify
fees for specific services, the legal costs to consumers will increase and not decrease. So you see, although in the statement before this the
author did mention that a state of no condition on legal advertising consistently led to decline in legal costs to consumer in the past, here the
author denies that the same pattern will be repeated.
(4) Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee
arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.: This too is authors opinion. He/she uses it to support the
opinion stated above. The author says that if the fee specifying restriction was removed, there would be two outcomes:
a. such lawyers who would now begin to advertise would not be motivated to lower their fees
b. such lawyers who already advertise would increase their fees

Pre-thinking
Bold-face questions form one of the two question categories, the other one being assumption, that lends itself easily to pre-thinking. So, after
the passage analysis, we should be able to pre-think the correct answer choice quite comfortably. Lets look at the relationship between the
two boldface portions, keeping our analysis of the two bold-face portions (as presented in the passage analysis )in mind:
Bold-face portion 1 (BF1) : It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the
number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence.

Bold-face portion 2 (BF2): Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer
required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
Now as of now, we can see that the two bold-face portions are not in the same line of thought. But it is difficult to see exactly how they are
related. For this reason, it is important (in every bold-face question) to evaluate how the bold face portions relate to the main conclusion of
the argument. This is also because the answer-choices in such questions will exploit your understanding of the logical structure of the
argument. Accordingly, lets analyze how the two bold-face portions relate to the main position taken by the author.
The final position taken by the author/main conclusion is expressed in point no (3) of the passage analysis. It is :
However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly
increase rather than further reduce consumers legal costs..
Keeping the main position in mind, lets see how best we can describe the two-bold face portions:
Bold-face 1 (BF1): each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising
their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence
Main position: However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost
certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers legal costs.
Bold-face 2 (BF2) : if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees

We can now clearly see that the main conclusion disputes the repetition of BF1 in a particular case, and BF 2 supports the main
conclusion

So while considering the following answer choices, please keep this reference handy. Lets move on to evaluating the option statements.
(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the
truth of that generalization.
This option is not correct.Since BF1 is a fact about a pattern observed in the past which the author accepts, the first portion of this answer
choice is correct. However, the description of BF 2 is not. BF2 is definitely not in the same line of thought as BF1. From the analysis done in
pre-thinking, we can see that BF2 has been used to support a point that goes against the fact that BF1 presents.Therefore, answer choice A is
incorrect.
(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second
acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
This is not the correct choice. As discussed earlier, the consumer advocate, who is the author of the argument, is of the opinion that the
trend observed in BF1 will NOT be repeated in the case at hand. The case at hand being- no requirement to specify fee while advertising legal
services. Therefore, although BF 1 is a pattern of cause and effect, it is not something that the consumer advocate argues will hold true in
this particular case as well.The description of the second bold-face portion is correct in this answer choice. As discussed in the pre-thinking,
BF2 is definitely a case where the trend observed in BF1 will not hold.However, since half part of this answer choice is incorrect, this option
is incorrect.
(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a
consideration in support of that prediction.
This option is correct.As discussed in answer choice B, the consumer advocate is of the opinion that the trend observed in BF1 will NOT be
repeated in the case at hand. So the first portion of this answer choice is correct.Lets evaluate the description of BF2 in this answer choice.
According option C:the second offers a consideration in support of that predictionThis description matches our analysis of BF2 (in the prethinking phase) with respect to the main conclusion. The prediction referred to in the answer choice is the same as the main conclusion of the
argument. Since the description of BF1 and BF2 are correct, this is the correct answer.
(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
This option is incorrect. According to this answer choice BF1 supports the prediction (main conclusion) in the argument. However, as seen in
our pre-thinking, BF1 and the main conclusion are in the opposite line of thought. Therefore, this description is not correct.This choice
describes BF 2 as the prediction that has been supported by BF1. Now from our analysis, we know that BF2 is not the prediction or main
conclusion. It is something that has been used in support of the main conclusion. Secondly, from our pre-thinking we know that statements
made in BF1 and BF2 are not in the same line of thought. So there is no question of BF1s supporting BF2. Since the descriptions of both BF1
and BF2 are incorrect, this is option is not correct.
(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that
position.

This option is incorrect as the description of BF2 is not correct in it. But before we get to BF2, lets see how BF1 has been described here. As
per this choice, BF1 is a consideration that goes against the main position (conclusion) of the argument. This description is fair. As stated in
the prethinking phase, the trend observed in BF1 is NOT consistent with the prediction made by the author that the legal costs would increase
in the case at hand.However as stated earlier, the description of BF2 is not correct. According to choice E, BF2 is the prediction referred to in
the first part of the answer. This means that BF2 is the main conclusion of the argument. But thats not the case. BF2 has been used in
support of the prediction/main conclusion of the argument. Hence, this answer choice is not correct.

13)
Trying to figure out the gist of the argument
Grey part is what the critics say: the student are lazy, eventually
Red part what is stated by the critics: notice here the tone of the argument: in C and D the answer choices use "was used" but here we have a
strong tone: it states something for sure
Blue part here the officer completely changes the argument with a strong shift as well. He states something else: Y instead of X (the critics)
and support in a definitely way his reasons saying A and B
E must be the answer in this tough and well formulated question. The figure below is a my own alaboration

14)
The question asks us to find an option statement which is most strongly suggested by the passage. Therefore, the question is very similar to
an inference question.
Facts of the case:
Decline in manufacturing sets off a chain reaction.
Decline in manufacturing -> Non-maintenance of Process-engineering expertise -> Difficulty in conducting research on next generation
process technologies -> Inability to develop new products.

Prethinking:
The passage talks about a sequential cause-effect relationship in the form: A->B->C->D.

In this case, an inference of the form X->Y can be built from the information given, where X can be any event which precedes Y in the above
chain reaction.

Analysis of Answer choices:

A. In the long term, an economy with a deteriorating infrastructure for advanced process engineering and with declining manufacturing
activity will likely lose its ability to innovate. Correct

choice.We dont know for sure what a decline in advanced process

engineering could lead to, since the passage talks about process engineering in general. However, a declining manufacturing activity will
necessarily lead to inability to develop new products or innovate. Therefore, this statement is supported by the information given in the
passage.
B. To develop new products a company must never cut down its manufacturing. The passage talks about manufacturing in a region, not a
company, which may be spread over multiple regions. Thus, this option is incorrect.
C. An increase in the manufacturing activity in a region leads to increase in innovation within the region While a decrease in manufacturing
activity leads to decrease in innovation, we cannot infer what effect an increase in manufacturing activity will have. Thus, incorrect.
D. To develop new products, a company needs to frequently change its processes. Without the word frequently, this option could have
been attractive. Note that frequent change of processes as a prerequisite to develop new products cannot be inferred from the passage.
Thus, incorrect.
E. An economy that has growing manufacturing capabilities will churn out more new products than other economies. Again, like option D,
we cannot infer about the effect of increasing manufacturing activity. Thus, Incorrect.

15)
This is quite a challenging BF question and the variety of responses here support my belief.

Understanding the Passage

Let's start with something we should do first i.e. understanding the passage. Let's go through the passage line by line:
1. About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. - It's a factual
statement that tells us something that happened a long time ago.
2. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. - This is also factual. However, this fact happened at the same time as the one in
first statement.
3. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; - Now, this is Paleo's opinion. Saying that
someting is misguided is not a fact, it's an opinion that tells us that Paleo doesn't agree that cold killed those bottom dwelling creatures.
4. temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. - This is a reason to back up the opinion of Paleo. Since the
temperatures changed very little, this temperature change should not have led to the death of bottom dwelling creatures.
5. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. - This is our first Bold Face statement or BF1.
This is a causative statement where the Paleo links cold to population decline, with a keyword "indirectly". So, in previous statement, the
Paleo opined that cold did not lead to death of bottom dwelling creatures and provided a reason for the same. In this statement, Paleo
introduces his own theory of how cold might have effected bottom dwelling creatures. So, this statement could be called an opinion or
conclusion or judgement or hypothesis of the Paleo.
6. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they
died. - This is most probably a fact because what bottom creatures eat is not a matter of opinion, they eat what they eat. However. the
presence of "many" could make it an opinion since different people would define "many" differently. This statement, along with the next
statement (BF2) provides support to the opinion of the Paleo (BF1). This statement says that bottom dwelling creatures depended on Plankton
for food.

7. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface,
depriving many bottom-dwellers of food. - This is BF2. This says that Plankton suffered a sever population decline. Read this statement
with the preceding statement, which said Plankton was food for bottom dwelling creatures. So, combining these statements, we find that the
food of bottom dwelling creatures declined severely. This could now explain BF1 (indirect cause of decline).
Now, let's look at the options:

Option Analysis
A. The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis. - As
we understand, BF1 can be termed as hypothesis of Paleontologist. We know BF2 supports BF1. So, the roles of both BF1 and BF2 roughly
match with our understanding. Let's keep this option in the fray.
B. The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes. - Here, the
explantion of BF2 is easily wrong. Paleo doesn't oppose BF2 in any way. Thus, this is incorrect.
C. The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist. - Here, BF1 is
not challenged by the Paleo; instead, BF1 is proposed by Paleo. So, Incorrect.
D. The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion. - In our anlaysis
we found that BF2 supports BF1 and this option says just the opposite. However, I would advise you to eliminate this option only after reading
BF1 and BF2 again. But do eliminate this because BF1 is no way explain BF2. So, this is also incorrect.
E. The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization
does not hold. - BF2 doesn't present any exceptional circumstances. Therefore, this is also incorrect.
So, after going through the options, we find that option A is the correct choice.

16)
Understanding the argument
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered
such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. - This is a fact. It compares countries where whiplash
injuries are covered in automobile insurance with countries where whiplash injuries are not covered under automobile insurance. The first set
of countries have twice as many reports of whiplash injuries as compared to the latter set of countries.
Presently; no objective test for whiplash exists, - This is also a fact.
so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. - This is an opinion of the author. He agrees that spurious
reports of whiplash injuries cannot be easily identified. Pay attention to the language here. Even though no one has till now talked about
spurious reports of whiplash injuries, the author has written this sentence in a way that shows agreement. Probably, the coming sentences
will throw some light on this.
Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported
whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. - Focus on 'Nevertheless'. It indicates change in direction. Now, read this statement
along with the preceding statement. So, basically, in the preceding statement, the author was agreeing to the commentators, who have been
referred to in this statement. So, even though the author agrees that identifying spurious cases might be a challenge, he disagrees that it
means half the cases of whiplash injuries are spurious (If you are wondering why author refers to 'half' the cases, read the first statement
again, which talks about twice the number of whiplash injuries).
Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash
injuries that they actually have suffered. - With this statement, the author reconciles his opinion (that it does not mean half the cases are
spurious) with the fact stated in the first statement (that there are twice as many reports of whiplash injuries in countries where whiplash
injuries are covered under automobile insurance). How does he reconcile? He reconciles by offering an alternative explanation for the fact -

he says that the reason there are high reports of whiplash injuries in countries where these are covered under automobile insurances is that in
these countries, people have incentive to report these injuries (they will get compensation for these injuries) whereas in other countries,
people don't have incentive to report whiplash injuries because they are not going to be compensated for these injuries.

Pre-thinking
Now, if you look back and see what has happened in this argument, you can prethink the roles of the two Bold Faced parts:
The first bold faced part is an observation or fact on which the commentators based their opinion on.
The second bold faced part is an alternative explanation offered by the author, which counters the opinion of the commentators.

Now, let's analyse the option statements:

Analysis of option statements

(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim. - Obviously, BF1 is not
disputed in the argument. Incorrect.
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion. - First of all, BF1
is not a claim. It is a fact or a finding or an observation but not a claim. Secondly, we know from our analysis that BF1 has been used to
support an explanation (of commentators) which is countered in the passage. So, Incorrect.
(C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main
conclusion of the argument. - Like option B, the role of BF1 is not correctly mentioned in this. Besides, BF2 is not the main conclusion of the
argument. Second last statement (which is not bolded) is the main conclusion of the argument. Incorrect.
(D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving
certain implications from that finding. - This is correct. What are the implications of BF1? The implications are the conclusion drawn by the
commentators from BF1. We know that this is the issue of the argument. Besides, BF2 offers an alternate explanation for the finding to
counter the explanation offered by commentators. So, the roles of both BF1 and BF2 are correctly mentioned. Correct.
(E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is
accurate. - The accuracy of BF1 is not evaluated in the argument. Incorrect.

17)
Understanding the Passage
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. So, we have an unexpected thing here: death rate from Asthma increased even though there have been improvements in the treatment.
Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. - We have two possible explanations for the unexpected thing.
First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. - This
means that probably the death rate has not increased per se but now, we are recording more deaths for every 100 deaths. For example: in
the past, we used to record only 40 deaths for 100 actual deaths but now, we record, say, 70 deaths for every 100 deaths. So, this explains
the increase in death rate observed even though we have better treatment.
Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. - This means that one adverse factor has increased - pollution has increased. So, even
though we have better treatments but the effect of that has been nullified or even superseded by the effect of the increase in pollution. This
fact also explains increase in death rates observed.
However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records
- This counters first reason that increase in death rates is because of more accurate recording. It says that deaths have increase dramatically

even in cities which have had accurate recording from a long time. So, the first reason cannot explain the rise in deaths.
and with little or no urban pollution, - This counters the second reason. If there is no pollution, then pollution cannot be the cause of
increased deaths.
one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms. This is the conclusion of the argument. It basically says that since the other two reasons cannot explain the increase in deaths, the reason is
the use of bronchial inhalers.

Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT: - It means that we'll have four statements which will support the
conclusion (do you remember the conclusion?!) and one statement which will not support the conclusion and this statement is the answer of
this.

Option Statement Analysis

(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade. - Does this support the conclusion that the use of bronchial inhalers is the cause of
increased death rates? The answer is No. I can only link this option statement with the second reason given about urban pollution, but the
second reason has already been countered in the last statement of the passage, so this option statement is irrelevant and therefore, could be
the correct option statement.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years. - This option statement further counters
Reason 1 and thereby supports the conclusion.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen. - This statement directly supports
the conclusion.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures. - This statement also
supports the conclusion.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment. - This suggests that increase in deaths due to Asthma could
be due to the introduction of bronchial inhalers. Therefore, this statement also supports the conclusion.
As we can see, option A is the clear winner.

Now, we take up the next question:

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? - We need to find out the assumption.
(A) Urban pollution has not doubled in the past decade. - Even if urban pollution has doubled, how does that impact the conclusion? I am
relying on data that says that even in cities with no urban pollution, the death rate has risen dramatically. So, even if urban pollution
doubled, it will not mean that urban pollution is the cause of increased deaths because I have already countered this in the argument.
Therefore, this statement is not the required assumption.
(B) Doctors and patients generally ignore the role of allergies in asthma. - Can you see what this option is doing? It is introducing one more
factor which can explain the increased deaths. If we have one more possible cause, then our conclusion is weakened. We know that an
assumption cannot weaken the conclusion; rather an assumption always supports the conclusion. Therefore, without further do, we can kick
this option statement out.
(C) Bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used according to the recommended instructions. - My first impression is that this statement
supports the conclusion. However, is it absolutely necessary for the conclusion to hold true? The answer is No. Bronchial inhalers can be safe
when used according to recommended instructions. Such a case won't break down the conclusion. Probably, they are safe when used
according to the instructions but a large number of people don't use according to the instructions. So, we have a case where the negation of
the statement and the conclusion both will hold true. Therefore, the statement is not absolutely required for the conclusion to hold true.
Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
(D) The use of bronchial inhalers aggravates other diseases that frequently occur among asthma sufferers and that often lead to fatal
outcomes even when the asthma itself does not. - This statement, like option C, supports the conclusion; however, this statement also is not
absolutely required for the conclusion to hold true. Even if the use of inhalers doesn't aggravate other diseases, it does not mean that inhalers
are not the cause of increased deaths. Probably, the inhalers themselves are capable of causing deaths that they don't require help from

other diseases

So, this option statement is also not required assumption and hence incorrect.

(E) Increased urban pollution, improved recording of asthma deaths, and the use of bronchial inhalers are the only possible explanations of
the increased death rate due to asthma. - This is the answer because we have already rejected four option statements and this is the last
one, so we must select this. Just joking!
To understand why this is required assumption, we need to look at how the conclusion was derived. The conclusion was derived by saying that
since A and B are not the possible reason, C is the cause of increased deaths. Do you understand this? If not, look back at the passage
analysis.
So, we inherently assumed that only A, B and C are the reasons. If that is not the assumption and we thought D is also possible, then
conclusion should have been: Since A and B are not the reasons, either C or D is the cause of increased deaths.
But that is not what we concluded. We concluded that C is the cause of increased deaths. So, we assumed that only three given reasons are
possible.

18)
Understanding the passage
This also means simplifying the passage.
Original passage:
1. Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species
: a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish
2. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
3. Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however
4. the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire
Simplified Passage:
1. Excavation of City X have uncovered mosaics of some animal species
2. Most of those animal species did not live in X when these mosaics were created
3. Identical mosaics appear in other Roman cities (Remember X is also a Roman city)
4. Conclusion: the mosaics were created by artisans who came from other Roman cities (where these animals could have been present during
the time when these mosaics were created)
Can you understand the logical flow of the argument? Why does the author think that the mosaics were created by artisans from other Roman
cities and not by artisans of City X? The reason is that the animals whose mosaics were found in X did not exist in City X when these mosaics
were created. So, if the animals were not there, how could have artisans of City X created mosaics of such animals? Right?
Therefore, the author concludes that these mosaics were created by artisans from other Roman cities.

Prethinking
What is the conclusion?
The mosaics were very likely created by artisans from some other part of Roman empire
What is the most basic assumption?
The assumption is that the mosaics were not likely created by artisans of City X.
Right?
Now, we can get to more specific assumptions by thinking of scenarios in which artisans of City X could have developed these mosaics. The
assumption would be all these scenarios do not exist. Right?

If these scenarios exist (i.e. aritsans of City X artisans could have created mosaics), then the conclusion breaks down. Therefore, the
assumption will be that none of these scenarios exist.
We need not think of any specific scenario. Pre-thinking till this part is perfectly fine.

Analysis of option statements

A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturaly in the Sepphoris area. It is talking about
composition of mosaics. Even if these mosaics were exclusively built from Sepphoris stones, they could have been built by travelling artisans.
So, even if this statement is negated, the conclusion does not break down. So, this is incorrect.
b. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. Again, use negation. If there is a single
region, say City Y, to which all the species in the mosaics are native, cant these mosaics be built by travelling artisans? Even if that were so,
these mosaics could still have been built by travelling artisans, possibly from City Y. So, again, conclusion does not shatter.
c. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. Given the option statements
use very relevant terms here, I would again use negation to test whether this can be the correct choice or not.
The negation is:
There are some motifs that appear in the Sepphoris mosaics but that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
This means that some motifs are exclusively there in Sepphoris city. But cant traveling artisans built these motifs or mosaics only in
Sepphoris? Yes, they could have. Traveling artisans could have built such motifs only in Sepphoris. In this case too, the conclusion does not
break down.
d. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.
Now, this is applicable for both traveling and local artisans. So, option D does not affect the conclusion (that these mosaics were created by
traveling artisans) or our basic assumption (that these mosaics were not built by local artisans)
e. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.
Negate this.
The negation of this statement is:
There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar
If there was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans of Sepphoris were familiar, then mosaics could have been created by
artisans of Sepphoris even though such animals were not present at that time. The local artisans could have just taken inspiration from the
common repertory.
So, when this option statement is negated, we have a scenario in which local artisans may have created the mosaics. In this case, we cannot
say that mosaics were very likely created by traveling artisans.
So, the conclusion breaks down. Therefore, option E is the correct choice.