Historian: In the collection of the Science Museum, London, there is a small bottle that is purported to contain the...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
Historian: In the collection of the Science Museum, London, there is a small bottle that is purported to contain the entire original batch of artificial mauve dye created by Sir William Perkin in his laboratory in 1856. Indeed, in his experiments that preceded his commercial production of mauve dyes, he made only a few grams of the substance, but this batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye. Also, the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle.
Statement: The historian's statements imply that the bottle does not contain 1 at least in part because the substance in the bottle is 2. Select for 1 and for 2 the options that create the statement that is most strongly supported by the information above.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
| Passage Statement | Analysis & Implications |
| "There is a small bottle that is purported to contain the entire original batch of artificial mauve dye created by Sir William Perkin in his laboratory in 1856" |
|
| "In his experiments that preceded his commercial production of mauve dyes, he made only a few grams of the substance" |
|
| "This batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye" |
|
| "The early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle" |
|
Key Patterns Identified
- The original experimental batch would have been used up
- Early versions of the dye (both experimental and commercial) were NOT crystalline
- The bottle contains crystalline dye, which doesn't match historical facts
- The historian is building a case against the bottle's authenticity claim
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding Each Part
- Part 1 Focus: What the bottle does NOT contain (filling in the negative claim)
- Part 2 Focus: What characteristic of the substance proves Part 1 (the reason WHY)
- Relationship: Part 2 provides evidence for why Part 1 must be true
Valid Inferences Generated
- Primary Inference: The bottle cannot contain Perkin's original batch because:
- It would have been used up in testing
- The form (crystalline) doesn't match what the original would have been
- Secondary Inference: The crystalline nature specifically disqualifies it from being the original
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Analyzing Each Option:
"Any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye"
- What it claims: Not even a portion of the original experimental batch
- Fact Support: Original batch used up + wrong physical form
- Part Suitability: Perfect for Part 1 (what's NOT in the bottle)
"A dye produced in Perkins' laboratory"
- What it claims: Any dye from his lab
- Fact Support: Too broad - commercial dyes also came from his lab
- Part Suitability: Not precise enough
"A dye created in 1856"
- What it claims: Any dye from that year
- Fact Support: Doesn't capture the specific issue
- Part Suitability: Too general
"A commercially produced dye"
- What it claims: Dye from commercial production
- Fact Support: Commercial dyes were paste, not crystalline
- Part Suitability: Could work but doesn't address the original batch claim
"A crystalline form of the dye"
- What it claims: The dye is in crystalline form
- Fact Support: Directly stated in passage
- Part Suitability: Perfect for Part 2 (explains WHY the bottle can't have original)
Final Answer Selection
Part 1: "Any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye" - This is what the bottle does NOT contain
Part 2: "A crystalline form of the dye" - This characteristic proves it can't be the original
Verification: The statement reads: "The bottle does not contain any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye at least in part because the substance in the bottle is a crystalline form of the dye." This perfectly captures the historian's reasoning - the crystalline nature (among other factors) proves it's not the original batch.