There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century book describing a journey Marco Polo of Venice supposedly made to China,...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century book describing a journey Marco Polo of Venice supposedly made to China, yet none contains any description of the Great Wall of China. Since Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described and since the book reports in detail on other, less notable, structures, the omission of the Great Wall strongly suggests that Marco Polo never did actually travel to China.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

The original manuscript of the book describing Marco Polo's supposed journey is no longer in existence.

In his travels, Marco Polo certainly visited his family's trading posts on the Black Sea, where he would have had contact with people who had traveled to the various parts of China that the book describes.

Many notable structures in China that are described in the book were hundreds of years old at the time Marco Polo supposedly traveled to China.

At some places along the Great Wall, a traveler crossing the Wall could do so without realizing that it was an enormous structure.

Certain pieces of accurate information about thirteenth-century China are contained in some of the known versions of the book but not in all known versions.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
There are several known versions of the thirteenth-century book describing a journey Marco Polo of Venice supposedly made to China, yet none contains any description of the Great Wall of China.	What it says: Multiple versions of Marco Polo's travel book exist, but none mentions the Great Wall What it does: Sets up a puzzling omission that will need explanation What it is: Author's factual observation
Since Marco Polo would have had to cross the Great Wall to travel the route described and since the book reports in detail on other, less notable, structures, the omission of the Great Wall strongly suggests that Marco Polo never did actually travel to China.	What it says: The author concludes Marco Polo never went to China because he would've had to cross the Wall and he wrote about smaller structures What it does: Provides reasoning for why the omission matters and draws the main conclusion What it is: Author's conclusion with supporting logic Visualization: Route to China → Must cross Great Wall + Book mentions smaller buildings but not Great Wall → Suggests he never actually made the trip

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with an observed fact (no mention of Great Wall in any version of Marco Polo's book), then provides two key pieces of reasoning (he would've had to cross it, and he wrote about smaller structures), leading to the conclusion that he never actually traveled to China.

Main Conclusion:

Marco Polo never actually traveled to China.

Logical Structure:

This is an argument by elimination. The author says if Marco Polo really made the journey, we would expect to see the Great Wall mentioned in his detailed book. Since it's not there (despite mentioning smaller structures), the most likely explanation is that the journey never happened.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion (Marco Polo never actually traveled to China) more believable

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about what Marco Polo would have HAD TO do (cross the Great Wall) and what he DID do (describe other less notable structures in detail). The conclusion is absolute - he NEVER actually traveled to China.

Strategy

To strengthen this argument, we need information that makes the omission of the Great Wall even more suspicious or puzzling. We can do this by:

Making the Great Wall more impossible to miss during Marco Polo's supposed time period,
Showing that Marco Polo was especially thorough about documenting architectural features, or
Eliminating alternative explanations for why he might have missed mentioning the Wall.

Answer Choices Explained

The original manuscript of the book describing Marco Polo's supposed journey is no longer in existence.

This doesn't strengthen the argument about whether Marco Polo actually traveled to China. The existence or non-existence of the original manuscript doesn't affect the reasoning about why the Great Wall was omitted from all known versions. We still have multiple versions that consistently lack any mention of the Great Wall, which is what the argument relies on.

This strengthens the argument significantly. It provides a plausible alternative explanation for how Marco Polo could have obtained detailed, accurate information about Chinese structures without actually traveling to China himself. If he gathered this information secondhand from other travelers, this explains both why his book contains accurate details about various Chinese structures AND why he omitted the Great Wall - he never personally encountered it. This eliminates a potential counterargument and makes the conclusion more convincing.

Many notable structures in China that are described in the book were hundreds of years old at the time Marco Polo supposedly traveled to China.

This is irrelevant to whether Marco Polo actually made the journey. The age of the structures he described doesn't impact the reasoning about why he would have omitted the Great Wall if he had actually traveled the described route.

At some places along the Great Wall, a traveler crossing the Wall could do so without realizing that it was an enormous structure.

This actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. If Marco Polo could have crossed the Great Wall without realizing its significance, this provides a reasonable explanation for why he might not have mentioned it in his book, even if he did actually travel to China.

Certain pieces of accurate information about thirteenth-century China are contained in some of the known versions of the book but not in all known versions.

This doesn't strengthen the argument. The inconsistency between versions doesn't address the core issue - that none of the versions mention the Great Wall, despite the detailed descriptions of other, less notable structures.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...