Critical Reasoning

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:29 am
Thanked: 4 times

Critical Reasoning

by danjuma » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:04 pm
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern , non-forager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists strategy?

1. All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies
2.Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life
3.All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day societies

4.Many anthropologists who study modern day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.

5.Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:48 pm
danjuma wrote:Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern , non-forager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists strategy?

1. All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies
2.Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life
3.All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day societies

4.Many anthropologists who study modern day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.

5.Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies
Is it 4?

Only this option makes the variance among societies non useful to basis of criticism mentioned in the passage.

Whats OA?

Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:22 pm
shovan85 wrote:
danjuma wrote:Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern , non-forager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists strategy?

1. All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies
2.Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life
3.All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day societies

4.Many anthropologists who study modern day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.

5.Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies
Is it 4?

Only this option makes the variance among societies non useful to basis of criticism mentioned in the passage.

Whats OA?
the answer choice 4 is not relevant. answer is A
CR says study about morden forager to learn something from ancient forage society is wrong cos each society is different...
A says its not different at all, they had a number of feature in common

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:49 pm
diebeatsthegmat wrote:
shovan85 wrote:
danjuma wrote:Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern , non-forager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists strategy?

1. All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies
2.Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life
3.All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day societies

4.Many anthropologists who study modern day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.

5.Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies
Is it 4?

Only this option makes the variance among societies non useful to basis of criticism mentioned in the passage.

Whats OA?
the answer choice 4 is not relevant. answer is A
CR says study about morden forager to learn something from ancient forage society is wrong cos each society is different...
A says its not different at all, they had a number of feature in common
Agreed It should be A. I might be sleeping ;)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:02 pm
Agreed that 4 is out of context!

But can someone explain why is it not 5?

Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:46 pm
bubbliiiiiiii wrote:Agreed that 4 is out of context!

But can someone explain why is it not 5?
5 strengthens the CR

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:49 am
Location: Hyderbad, India
GMAT Score:660

by abhi.genx7 » Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:34 am
The official Ans pls