A thirteenth-century book purporting to record an account given by Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, of a journey he supposedly...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A thirteenth-century book purporting to record an account given by Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, of a journey he supposedly made to China contains no description of the Great Wall of China. Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described and, obviously, would not have omitted mention of the Great Wall if he had seen it. Most probably, therefore, Marco Polo never did actually travel to China.
The argument relies on which of the following as an assumption?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A thirteenth-century book purporting to record an account given by Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, of a journey he supposedly made to China contains no description of the Great Wall of China. |
|
| Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described and, obviously, would not have omitted mention of the Great Wall if he had seen it. |
|
| Most probably, therefore, Marco Polo never did actually travel to China. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a puzzling observation (no Great Wall mentioned in Marco Polo's account), then explains why this absence is meaningful (he would have had to see it and definitely would have mentioned it), and finally concludes that this gap proves he never made the journey.
Main Conclusion:
Marco Polo never actually traveled to China.
Logical Structure:
This is a classic argument by elimination. The author reasons: IF Marco Polo went to China via the described route, THEN he would have seen the Great Wall and mentioned it. Since he didn't mention it, he must not have made the trip. The logic depends on the assumption that seeing the Great Wall was unavoidable and that Marco Polo would have definitely written about it if he saw it.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for the conclusion to hold. This is something that, if false, would make the argument fall apart.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about Marco Polo's route requirements (would have had to cross the Great Wall), his behavior (would not have omitted mentioning it), and the book's contents (no description of the Great Wall).
Strategy
For assumption questions, we identify ways the conclusion could be falsified while respecting the given facts. The conclusion is that Marco Polo never traveled to China. We need to find what must be true for this logic to work - essentially, what gaps exist between the evidence (no Great Wall mention) and the conclusion (never went to China).
'The route described is the most direct one that Marco Polo could have taken.' This isn't necessary for the argument to work. Even if there were other, more direct routes available, the argument still holds as long as Marco Polo would have encountered the Great Wall on the route that was actually described in the book. The argument specifically refers to 'the route described,' not all possible routes to China.
'Marco Polo had no communication with any traveler who had seen the Great Wall.' This doesn't need to be true for the argument to work. The argument focuses on what Marco Polo would have written about based on what he personally saw during his journey. Even if he had heard about the Great Wall from other travelers, the argument's logic is that he would have mentioned it if he had actually seen it himself during his supposed trip.
'The book's author most probably included in the book only information obtained from Marco Polo firsthand.' This is too restrictive. The argument doesn't require that ALL information came from Marco Polo firsthand - it just needs the author to have included Marco Polo's account of what he saw during his travels. The argument could still work even if the book contained some secondhand information, as long as Marco Polo's direct observations were included.
'It is unlikely that the book's author suppressed as blatant fabrication any references Marco Polo might have made to the Great Wall.' This is the correct assumption. The argument's logic depends on the idea that if Marco Polo had seen and mentioned the Great Wall, this information would appear in the book. If the author had deliberately removed or suppressed Marco Polo's references to the Great Wall, then the absence of such descriptions wouldn't prove Marco Polo never traveled to China. The argument MUST assume that any mention Marco Polo made of the Great Wall would have been included in the book.
'If Marco Polo had seen the Great Wall, he would have considered it the most notable structure in China.' The argument doesn't require the Great Wall to be the MOST notable structure - just that Marco Polo would have mentioned it. He could have found other structures equally or more impressive, but still would have written about the Great Wall given its significance and the fact that he would have had to cross it.