Archaeologists using a remote-controlled submarine to excavate an ancient shipwreck deep in the Mediterranean have been able to recover several...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Archaeologists using a remote-controlled submarine to excavate an ancient shipwreck deep in the Mediterranean have been able to recover several objects from the site of the wreck. By chemically dating the ship's timbers and examining other objects, such as coins, the archaeologists estimated that the ship was wrecked in the fifth century A.D. However, the submarine has also recovered from the site some large olive oil jars that cannot be from before the eighth century A.D.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for explaining the apparent discrepancy in the dates cited?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Archaeologists using a remote-controlled submarine to excavate an ancient shipwreck deep in the Mediterranean have been able to recover several objects from the site of the wreck. |
|
| By chemically dating the ship's timbers and examining other objects, such as coins, the archaeologists estimated that the ship was wrecked in the fifth century A.D. |
|
| However, the submarine has also recovered from the site some large olive oil jars that cannot be from before the eighth century A.D. |
|
Argument Flow:
We start with archaeologists finding objects from a shipwreck. They use scientific dating to conclude the ship sank in the 5th century. But then we hit a problem - they also found olive oil jars that can't be older than the 8th century. This creates a puzzle that needs explaining.
Main Conclusion:
There's actually no main conclusion here - this passage presents a dating discrepancy that needs to be resolved. The 'conclusion' is really just pointing out that we have conflicting dates that don't make sense together.
Logical Structure:
This isn't a typical argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's a problem setup. We have Evidence A (ship timbers and coins) pointing to 5th century, and Evidence B (olive oil jars) pointing to 8th century or later. The 'However' signals that these two pieces of evidence contradict each other, creating the discrepancy that needs explanation.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Paradox - We need to find an explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction between the 5th century ship wreck and the 8th century olive oil jars found at the same site.
Precision of Claims
The claims involve specific time periods (5th century vs 8th century) and location (same excavation site). We cannot question that the ship is from the 5th century or that the jars are from the 8th century or later - these are established facts.
Strategy
For paradox questions, we need to find scenarios that explain how both contradictory facts can be true simultaneously. We should look for ways that 8th century jars could end up at a 5th century shipwreck site without contradicting either dating.
This suggests the dating procedure has a margin of error of about 50 years. However, this doesn't resolve our discrepancy at all. Even with a 50-year margin of error, the 5th century ship dating would put us somewhere between 400-600 A.D., while the olive oil jars still can't be from before 700 A.D. We still have at least a 100-year gap that this choice doesn't explain.
This tells us there are no other wrecks in the immediate vicinity. If anything, this makes our paradox worse! If there are no other ships nearby, it becomes even more puzzling how 8th century jars ended up at a 5th century wreck site. This choice doesn't provide any explanation for the discrepancy.
This confirms that all the ship's timbers are about the same age, which supports the 5th century dating of the ship itself. However, this doesn't help us understand how 8th century olive oil jars got to the same excavation site. This choice actually reinforces one side of the paradox without explaining the contradiction.
This explains that Mediterranean sailors have historically jettisoned cargo during storms to lighten their ships. This perfectly resolves our paradox! The 5th century ship could have sunk and remained on the sea floor, but centuries later, 8th century ships passing overhead during storms could have thrown cargo overboard, including those olive oil jars. This allows both datings to be correct - the ship is from the 5th century, but some objects at the site are from later periods due to cargo dumping.
This tells us the olive oil jars and coins came from the same region. While this might seem to suggest they're from the same time period, it doesn't actually resolve the dating discrepancy. Objects from the same geographic region can still be from completely different time periods. This choice doesn't explain how 8th century jars ended up at a 5th century wreck site.