I think its 2 (B).

1 is wrong because using the present tense "paint" is incorrect.

3 is wrong because have painted is the present perfect tense which is inappropriate here since the cave dwellers are no longer painting murals.

4 is wrong because of the conjunction but changes the meaning of the sentence

5 is wrong because it uses the past perfect tense but the painting of the murals would have occurred after the hunting of the animals, so this would be a misuse of the past perfect tense.

Yes, 2 looks the most appropriate, but why past continuous tense? I am sure they were not painting at the time they hunted mammals.

osirus0830 wrote:I think its 2 (B).

1 is wrong because using the present tense "paint" is incorrect.

3 is wrong because have painted is the present perfect tense which is inappropriate here since the cave dwellers are no longer painting murals.

4 is wrong because of the conjunction but changes the meaning of the sentence

5 is wrong because it uses the past perfect tense but the painting of the murals would have occurred after the hunting of the animals, so this would be a misuse of the past perfect tense.

suchoudh wrote:Yes, 2 looks the most appropriate, but why past continuous tense? I am sure they were not painting at the time they hunted mammals.

osirus0830 wrote:I think its 2 (B).

1 is wrong because using the present tense "paint" is incorrect.

3 is wrong because have painted is the present perfect tense which is inappropriate here since the cave dwellers are no longer painting murals.

4 is wrong because of the conjunction but changes the meaning of the sentence

5 is wrong because it uses the past perfect tense but the painting of the murals would have occurred after the hunting of the animals, so this would be a misuse of the past perfect tense.

The author is using the gerund as a modifier to modify the entire proceeding clause.

Well, it was not clear how the action of painting modifies hunting.

But yes you are right, OA is indeed 2(B).

suchoudh wrote:Well, it was not clear how the action of painting modifies hunting.

But yes you are right, OA is indeed 2(B).

What source are these questions from?

Sorry, can't disclose but it is one from one of the new test prep companies.

Oh, ok, as long as its not Kaplan you should be fine.

May I ask why you can't disclose the sources?

suchoudh wrote:Sorry, can't disclose but it is one from one of the new test prep companies.

Please cite the source !

Prehistoric cave dwellers hunted the large mammals of their environment and paint murals of these hunting scenes.
(1) environment and paint
(2) environment, painting
(3) environment and have painted
(4) environment but painted
(5) environment and had painted

B doesn't make sense to me; it seems to imply that they hunted the animals while painting the murals. Maybe a semicolon instead of a comma would be better?
My ideal answer would be "environment and painted" but here I would choose E; again obviously I think even that is wrong because of the misplaced past perfect tense.
Expert opinions please...

B is correct because it is the best of all the options. It can be put this way that the dwellers hunted the animals painting the murals after their hunt.

suchoudh wrote:Yes, 2 looks the most appropriate, but why past continuous tense? I am sure they were not painting at the time they hunted mammals.

Remember, the simple past can refer to an action that happened once in the past, but it also can refer to an action that happened routinely over a peroid of time. (I went to school in 97. When I lived in Detroit, I shopped at Wal-Mart)

In this case, 'hunted mammals' refers not to a specific instance of hunting mammals, but to a routine of hunting mammals that we can only presume lasted generations. Simultaneous to the routine (not, as you pointed out, the literal act), they were painting those animals, so the past continuous is correct.

Prehistoric cave dwellers hunted the large mammals of their environment and paint murals of these hunting scenes.

Remember, the simple past can refer to an action that happened once in the past, but it also can refer to an action that happened routinely over a peroid of time. (I went to school in 97. When I lived in Detroit, I shopped at Wal-Mart)

In this case, 'hunted mammals' refers not to a specific instance of hunting mammals, but to a routine of hunting mammals that we can only presume lasted generations. Simultaneous to the routine (not, as you pointed out, the literal act), they were painting those animals, so the past continuous is correct.

I think there is a flaw in the reasoning here; the original sentence is connecting the two activities of hunting and painting when it mentions "of these hunting scenes"
If you consider the routine argument, then by this logic both activities should be in simple past tense i.e. "hunted" and "painted"

I think the grammar of this sentence is incorrectly being guided by the implied meaning of the phrase "prehistoric cavemen", if we consider this phrase to be the noun or subject of the sentence then this sentence construction is similar to:

Mac hunted animals, painting their pictures. which is ridiculous!
It should be:
Mac hunted animals and painted their pictures!

Please correct me if I am wrong
I[/i]

The example you gave is ridiculous, because it sounds like Mac went hunting once. However, If we change the context: "Mac spent last summer in Saskatchewan. There, he hunted animals, painting their pictures" we get a sentence that establishes that the hunting happened over a period of time, during which he also painted.

Note that I neither dispute that the sentence, as constructed, is a little awkward nor that your proposed version is better. And sometimes, the GMAT tests your ability to distinguish a clear construction from a confusing one. However, the GMAT also tests your ability to recognize correct grammar even when it sounds bad. To paraphrase Sherlock Homes, "When you have eliminated the ungrammatical, whatever remains, however unnatural, must be the truth"