Reading Comprehension

The Clovis points migration model offers evidence that the first movement of Homo sapiens into North America occurred approximately 14,000 years ago. History of the human presence in what is now Clovis, New Mexico, was discovered 40 years ago. A single spear point was found embedded in the hip bone of a mammoth presumably killed by a band of hunters. Paleo-archeologists determined the age of the bone: 13,400 years! When Clovis points were later found in a walrus hip in Chesapeake Bay, it seemed as if a technology had spread from eastern to western America.

Today, points similar to "Clovis" have been found in northern Spain and southern France; made by the Salutrian people. How could this connection be explained? It seems that approximately 15,000 years ago a boundary of the ice sheet extended across the Atlantic Ocean from France to North America. Paleo-archeologists now think the Salutrians traveled in skin boats across the frontier of the ice sheet all the way across this continent then took a left turn to the southwest, bringing their technology with them.

But wait! What about the Siberia-Alaska migration model? This land bridge migration theory for the New World has been widely accepted for eight decades. It proposes that hunters, tracking animal herds, migrated from Siberia into Alaska and down through North and Central America.

If the inhabitants of North America came across the Bering Strait from Siberia, then wouldn't it be assumed that the Clovis technology would be found there too? Nope. In fact, in Siberia, the tools of hunting were made of thin, sharp strips of stone embedded in strong wood and called "micro blades," nothing like the Clovis points. Further, the "scatter-path" of Salutrian artifacts included other tools such as axes unique to the Salutrians.

Not enough evidence? In recent genetic testing, Salutrian DNA has been found among east coast Native Americans. Case closed. Or maybe not.

Still another counter-theory is that watercraft could have brought other peoples to the shores of South America who then drifted north. There have been well-dated stratigraphic studies that point to people entering Australia some 40,000 years ago. At that period Australia was not connected to another continent, a fact leading to the assumption that it was reached by watercraft. If Australia was reached in this fashion, isn't there some reason to believe that the New World could have been reached in the same way?

But isn't the Salutrian explanation bullet proof? Were the first inhabitants of the New World actually French?

Well, no Salutrian artifacts have been found post- 11,000 years in France. What happened? Did each and every Salutrian come here? Or is it possible, to muddy the water a little more, that the Clovis points were developed on the North American continent?

The phrase "muddy the water a little more" in the last paragraph is probably used by the author to
A) provide additional clarity to the comments
B) dissuade the reader from accepting one theory over another
C) distill the apparent theoretical conflicts into a memorable catch phrase
D) further obscure the truth
E) offer a compelling, inescapable conclusion to the story line

Source: BTG Practice Questions
OA: C

I think the answer is either C or E, more likely C.

'GMAT-like' is a term that has been used and abused by students and experts alike so I would rather not comment on that.

I'll go with E.

Can you post the OA pls and also the source of this question.

Paulrichards wrote:I think the answer is either C or E, more likely C.

'GMAT-like' is a term that has been used and abused by students and experts alike so I would rather not comment on that.

@Paul, how did you distill the answer down to C?

This passage was rather interesting......C is what it seems to boil down to.

A) provide additional clarity to the comments

Doesn't add clarity to the comments, in fact, it's directly telling you that it's adding another theory to the already large number of theories.

B) dissuade the reader from accepting one theory over another

Doesn't do that as the statement does not advocate one theory or another

C) distill the apparent theoretical conflicts into a memorable catch phrase

The statement is directly telling us that it's trying add another theory, and alluding to the fact that there is really no front runner for a correct theory. I don't really agree with the last part with the memorable catch phrase however.

D) further obscure the truth

It's not obscuring the truth, but rather adding another theory which could lead to the truth.

E) offer a compelling, inescapable conclusion to the story line

There's no direct evidence that the additional information is an "inescapable" conclusion, as all theories have the same chance to be correct, and the correct one would lead to the truth.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't really like BTG reading comprehension passages, as the structure and language styles are just a bit off from OG guides and actual exam content. Just my 2 cents.

chendawg wrote:This passage was rather interesting......C is what it seems to boil down to.

BTG practice Qs.

Is it "GMAT-like"? Definitely not.

"To muddy the water" means to make things less clear. The purpose of this phrase is not, in my opinion, to "distill the apparent theoretical conflicts into a memorable catch phrase." This would mean that it states the essence of the problem in brief, pithy terms. It doesn't. If the author is using the phrase correctly, his purpose should be "to complicate the issue." Unless he/she is being ironic, in which case he/she accepts the predominant theory.

(A) is opposite to what the phrase means.
(B) is somewhat plausible, because the use of the phrase implies that there is no clear answer
(C) is not correct, as above
(D) is somewhat appealing, since "muddying the waters" is closest in meaning (non-ironically, though we can't necessarily trust this author to be direct) to "obscuring the truth," though making the issue less clear is not always the same as "obscuring," or "hiding" the truth
(E) is definitely not correct because 1) this is not how academic arguments develop conclusions and 2) it uses extreme language (i.e. "inescapable", or indubitable), which often signals an incorrect answer

So... I'm surprised to see that the answer is supposed to be (C). An official test item like this would not survive the test-item testing process, and I believe the best answer - albeit not a great answer - is (D).

Also, it's common on tests for the correct answer to be one of two opposites, and (A) and (D) are, for the most part, opposites.

should be C.
Bcz. 'to muddy the water a little more' is memorable and catchy phrase.

I totally understand why we sometimes overuse the phrase "GMAT-like," but in this case, I really do think it's important because TONALLY this passage is not within the realm of GMAT RC. GMAT RC passages are always scholarly and formal. You will never see a phrase such as, "But wait!" begin an official GMAT RC paragraph. So, to that end, I think it can actually be dangerous to spend time trying to learn a "takeaway" lesson from an RC passage such as this. Here's a MGMAT passage that is challenging and tonally right in line with the GMAT, if you want to dive in!

Measuring more than five feet tall and ten feet long, the Javan rhinoceros is often called the rarest large mammal on earth. Though the habitat of the Javan rhino once extended across southern Asia, now there are fewer than one hundred of the animals in Indonesia and fewer than a dozen in Vietnam. The decline of the species may have progressed too far to be reversed.

For centuries, farmers who wished to cultivate the rhino’s habitat viewed the animals as crop-eating pests and shot them on sight; during the colonial period, hunters slaughtered thousands for their horns, as poachers still do today. The surviving Vietnamese herd has diminished to the point that it can no longer maintain the genetic variation necessary for long-term survival.

The Indonesian herd cannot be used to supplement the Vietnamese population because, in the millions of years since Indonesia separated from the mainland, the two groups have evolved into separate sub-species. The Indonesian rhinos are protected on the Ujung Kulon peninsula, which is unsettled by humans, and still thought to have sufficient genetic diversity to survive.

The lack of human disturbance, however, allows mature forests to replace the shrubby vegetation preferred by the animals. Human benevolence may prove little better for these rhinos than past human maltreatment.

1) Which of the following best expresses the author's attitude toward the likely fate of the Javan Rhino?

A) optimistic about the Indonesian rhino's long-term survival
B) resigned to the eventual extinction of the species
C) uncertain about the on-going impact of farmers and hunters
D) pessimistic about the species' chances for survival
E) ambivalent about the long-term outcome for the Javan rhinoceros

-

Here's how I'd break down this passage:

Topic: Javan rhino

Scope: ability of rhino to survive

1st chunk: to introduce the endangered Rhino

2nd chunk: to explain why the rhino is endangered & that Viet herd can't survive

3rd chunk: to describe how 1 solution won't work (can't mix the Indo herd - diff. sub-species)

4th chunk: to emphasize that the Indo herd, though protected, might not survive either (lack of food source)

Overall Purpose: to describe the causes of endangerment & challenges facing 2 rhino species

Question Rephrase: How does the author feel about the fate of the rhino?

Prediction: It needs to be something negative, since the author offers no hope for either species. In fact, he makes it a point to say that the Indo rhino will also likely die out.

We can eliminate A, C and E since they are positive or neutral.

Between "resigned" and "pessimistic," choice (D) is the more negative choice and therefore correct. Beware of the potential confusion in the phrase "may prove little better." That means it will NOT prove better. The author provides no hope whatsoever.

Tone is a bigger deal on GMAT RC than we sometimes think!