BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Temp in Canada

Expert replies
by neha.patni » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:08 am
On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern Canada, scientists uncovered skeletal remains from about 100,000 years ago. Surprisingly, all the skeletal remains, which included many species from differing biological families and spanned about two thousand years, showed evidence of experiencing temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (or 538 degrees Celsius).

Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent paradox between the cold environment and the evidence of the bones experiencing hot temperatures?

A) Other scientific research released two years before the expedition showed that the remote region of northern Canada underwent considerable warming in the past 100,000 years.
B) Chemical changes that naturally occur during the process of decay in only one north Canadian species produce the same evidence of the species' skeletons being exposed to hot temperatures as the expedition scientists found.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.
E) In the same expedition and in roughly the same layer of excavation, scientists found rudimentary wood cutting and hunting tools used by early humans.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by outreach » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:26 am
is this a gmat question?
is the answer E .

neha.patni wrote:On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern Canada, scientists uncovered skeletal remains from about 100,000 years ago. Surprisingly, all the skeletal remains, which included many species from differing biological families and spanned about two thousand years, showed evidence of experiencing temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (or 538 degrees Celsius).

Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent paradox between the cold environment and the evidence of the bones experiencing hot temperatures?

A) Other scientific research released two years before the expedition showed that the remote region of northern Canada underwent considerable warming in the past 100,000 years.
B) Chemical changes that naturally occur during the process of decay in only one north Canadian species produce the same evidence of the species' skeletons being exposed to hot temperatures as the expedition scientists found.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.
E) In the same expedition and in roughly the same layer of excavation, scientists found rudimentary wood cutting and hunting tools used by early humans.
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by selango » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:54 am
What is the source of this question?

IMO E.

The region is cold and skeletal remains show evidence of experiencing very hot temperatures.

If early people cut wood to cook animals in Fires.This resolve the paradox by providing evidence about skeleton experiencing high temp.
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:10 am
Since passage talks abt all skeleton, it means that human skeletons as well, am I right? In that case how E????

IMO C

Edited - Agree that E is better. I am frustrated with 100% failure rate in CR

Here is the explaination to this question

https://www.platinumgmat.com/practice_gm ... ion_id=617
selango wrote:What is the source of this question?

IMO E.

The region is cold and skeletal remains show evidence of experiencing very hot temperatures.

If early people cut wood to cook animals in Fires.This resolve the paradox by providing evidence about skeleton experiencing high temp.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

by neha.patni » Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:53 am
selango wrote:What is the source of this question?

IMO E.

The region is cold and skeletal remains show evidence of experiencing very hot temperatures.

If early people cut wood to cook animals in Fires.This resolve the paradox by providing evidence about skeleton experiencing high temp.

OA E

This is a platinum GMAT question, but i haven't understood the explanation. What is wrong with answer C. experts please help
Join the discussion

by selango » Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:57 am
This is a paradox question.The answer option must discuss about both cases.

The answer option must discuss about evidence of hot temp[using fire] and skeletal remains.

Option C provide evidence only to hot temp.But what about the skeletal remains?No evidence or no case in the answer option.

Hence option C is not correct.
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by crackinggmat » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:01 am
isn,t in C ....it discusses a situation of about 103 000 yrs ago,while in question we are considering only those species which were since last 100,000 yrs ago....

moreover if E is ok...what is wrong with A .....IT SAYS A BIG WARMING EVENT OCCURED IN NORTHERN REGION OF CANADA ....IN PAST 100,000YRS...IS IT WRONG FOR WRITTING REMOTE REGIONS....

pls shed some light...
Join the discussion

by gmat1011 » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:10 am
I don't think this is very representative of a real GMAT question (based on my limited experience so far)

E requires you to assume the fires started with the wood would hit 1000 C

By the same token the "considerable warming" over the past 100,000 years in A could have also baked the remains real good! lets conveniently assume the temperatures over time or at a particular time hit 1000 C to nicely fry the bones....
Join the discussion