• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Most awarded test prep in the world
Now free for 30 days

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to $200 Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Get 300+ Practice Questions 25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5 Day FREE Trial Study Smarter, Not Harder Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Practice Test & Review How would you score if you took the GMAT Available with Beat the GMAT members only code IR: Giant Kangaroos - Marco and Fatima - GMATPrep Software This topic has 3 expert replies and 3 member replies s777 Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts Joined 22 Dec 2011 Posted: 8 messages IR: Giant Kangaroos - Marco and Fatima - GMATPrep Software Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:39 pm Can someone clearly explain this to me ? Though this IR (CR) question looks simple at the outset, there is fair amount of ambiguity in the answers provided. This is an official GMAT Prep Test question. Marco: Giant kangaroos - one of several extinct species of large mammals (megafauna) - went extinct around 46,000 years ago. The deposits and wear patterns on the teeth of these animals from around the time of their extinction indicate that they fed mostly on saltbrush shrubs. Saltbrush thrives in arid climates, so it is not likely that the kangaroos' food supply was adversely affected by the increasing aridity of the climate at that time. Thus, something else would have to account for their extinction, and the best candidate for that cause is predation by humans. Fatima: That argument alone is not likely to satisfy many researchers in this field. Have you found any other evidence to bolster your conclusion ? Select Marco for the statement that, if true, most justifies Marco's assertions, and select Fatima, for the statement that, if true, most justifies Fatima's skepticism about Marco's assertions. Make only two selections, one in each column. A) Giant kangaroos became extinct during a period that was less arid than previous periods they endured. B)Many researchers believe humans first arrived in Australia around 40,000 years ago. C)Approximately 60 different species in Australia died out in the wave of extinctions around 46,000 years ago. D)Fossils of giant kangaroos also sho evidence that those animals' diets routinely included plants other than saltbrush. E)Several types of megafauna larger than the giant kangaroo went extinct around 46,000 years ago. Ans: Marco's assertions : A Fatima's skepticism: B hugoba Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts Joined 07 Mar 2016 Posted: 1 messages Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:24 am Hi, Isn't letter D a supporter for Marco's? If their diets routinely included plants other than saltbrush then this strenghten the conclusion that the something else, other than food supply, would have accounted for their extinction. I can't see why A is a supporter. Suppose that the opposite of A is true : "Giant Kangaroos did not became extinct during a period that was less arid than periods they endured" or "Giant Kangaroos became extinct during a period that equal in aridity or was more arid than periods they endured"; it seems to me that the opposite of A supports Marco's assertion. How can A and not(A) support the same conclusion? Is my reasoning right? Can someone please help? Many thanks GMAT/MBA Expert DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member Joined 14 Jan 2015 Posted: 2613 messages Followed by: 118 members Upvotes: 1153 GMAT Score: 770 Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:46 am hugoba wrote: Hi, Isn't letter D a supporter for Marco's? If their diets routinely included plants other than saltbrush then this strenghten the conclusion that the something else, other than food supply, would have accounted for their extinction. I can't see why A is a supporter. Suppose that the opposite of A is true : "Giant Kangaroos did not became extinct during a period that was less arid than periods they endured" or "Giant Kangaroos became extinct during a period that equal in aridity or was more arid than periods they endured"; it seems to me that the opposite of A supports Marco's assertion. How can A and not(A) support the same conclusion? Is my reasoning right? Can someone please help? Many thanks There are two problems with D. First, just because the kangaroos' diet consisted of food other than saltbrush, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been harmed by the elimination of saltbrush. We're told that they fed "mostly on saltbrush." So this is a staple for them, even if they eat other things. Moreover, we know that the climate was becoming increasingly arid. These other foods may well have been wiped out by the increasing aridity. (saltbrush thrives in arid temperatures. But do the other plants?) As for A, think about it this way. Marco seems to be responding to this causal argument: increase aridity ---> decrease food supply ---> kangaroos die In other words, the arid climate is a problem for the kangaroos. Marco is saying this is wrong. In order for the original argument to make any sense, it has to be the case that this period was in fact unusually arid - otherwise, why would the food supply have been negatively impacted? But if this period is less arid than previous periods, as A stipulates, that would be consistent with Marco's claim that it wasn't the aridity that was the problem. The arid climate couldn't possibly have led to the extinction of the kangaroos if this period was less arid than previous periods. _________________ Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor Veritas Prep Reviews Save$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

GMAT/MBA Expert

DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Posted:
2613 messages
Followed by:
118 members
1153
GMAT Score:
770
Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:22 pm
s777 wrote:
Can someone clearly explain this to me ? Though this IR (CR) question looks simple at the outset, there is fair amount of ambiguity in the answers provided. This is an official GMAT Prep Test question.

Marco: Giant kangaroos - one of several extinct species of large mammals (megafauna) - went extinct around 46,000 years ago. The deposits and wear patterns on the teeth of these animals from around the time of their extinction indicate that they fed mostly on saltbrush shrubs. Saltbrush thrives in arid climates, so it is not likely that the kangaroos' food supply was adversely affected by the increasing aridity of the climate at that time. Thus, something else would have to account for their extinction, and the best candidate for that cause is predation by humans.

Fatima: That argument alone is not likely to satisfy many researchers in this field. Have you found any other evidence to bolster your conclusion ?

Select Marco for the statement that, if true, most justifies Marco's assertions, and select Fatima, for the statement that, if true, most justifies Fatima's skepticism about Marco's assertions. Make only two selections, one in each column.

A) Giant kangaroos became extinct during a period that was less arid than previous periods they endured.

B)Many researchers believe humans first arrived in Australia around 40,000 years ago.

C)Approximately 60 different species in Australia died out in the wave of extinctions around 46,000 years ago.

D)Fossils of giant kangaroos also sho evidence that those animals' diets routinely included plants other than saltbrush.

E)Several types of megafauna larger than the giant kangaroo went extinct around 46,000 years ago.

Ans: Marco's assertions : A

Fatima's skepticism: B
Boil the arguments way down.

Marco: humans responsible for extinction of kangaroos, not arid climate/food shortage

Fatima: disagrees with Marco (so she doesn't think humans are responsible.)

A) This is consistent with Marco's argument. He's saying the climate wasn't responsible. If the more arid climate of past periods wasn't enough to eliminate the food supply of the kangaroo, surely a less arid climate wouldn't have caused a food shortage.

B) Fatima says the humans aren't responsible. Well, if the humans weren't there yet when the kangaroos went extinct, they're pretty clearly not the culprit.

_________________
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save \$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
happyface101 Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Joined
04 Jul 2015
Posted:
3 messages
Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:14 pm
Hi! What I don't understand is why does A support Marco's claim? The statement says that the salt shrubs thrive in arid climate, so a less arid climate could lead to the demise of the salt shrubs, thus causing a food problem and killing off the Giant Kangaroos.

Any clarity around this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Marty Murray Legendary Member
Joined
03 Feb 2014
Posted:
2050 messages
Followed by:
131 members
955
GMAT Score:
800
Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:01 am
happyface101 wrote:
Hi! What I don't understand is why does A support Marco's claim? The statement says that the salt shrubs thrive in arid climate, so a less arid climate could lead to the demise of the salt shrubs, thus causing a food problem and killing off the Giant Kangaroos.

Any clarity around this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
First, there is no real indication that saltbrush shrubs would not survive in a climate less arid than some of the most arid that the kangaroos endured. The only thing said is that they thrive in arid climates.

Meanwhile, even if saltbrush shrubs were to need an arid climate in order to survive, what is said is that the climate was becoming increasingly arid at the time of the kangaroos' extinction. In other words, the kangaroos and the saltbrush shrubs were both surviving in the current level of aridity, and the climate was becoming even more arid. So if saltbrush shrubs were to indeed do better as the climate becomes more arid, things were going their way at the time of the kangaroos' extinction.

_________________
Marty Murray
GMAT Coach
m.w.murray@hotmail.com
http://infinitemindprep.com/
In Person in the New York Area and Online Worldwide

GMAT/MBA Expert

Matt@VeritasPrep GMAT Instructor
Joined
12 Sep 2012
Posted:
2640 messages
Followed by:
113 members
625
Target GMAT Score:
V51
GMAT Score:
780
Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:15 pm
happyface101 wrote:
Hi! What I don't understand is why does A support Marco's claim? The statement says that the salt shrubs thrive in arid climate, so a less arid climate could lead to the demise of the salt shrubs, thus causing a food problem and killing off the Giant Kangaroos.

Any clarity around this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
You want to be careful not to assume too much (sometimes you have to, but when you can avoid doing so, avoid doing so!) We don't know HOW arid the climate needs to be for saltbrush to survive in ample enough quantities to feed these kangaroos, so we can't assume that a less arid climate means a lack of saltbrush.

Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 112 topics
2 ardz24 71 topics
3 Roland2rule 69 topics
4 LUANDATO 53 topics
5 swerve 45 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

Most Active Experts

1 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

154 posts
2 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

107 posts
3 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

106 posts
4 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

98 posts
5 EconomistGMATTutor

The Economist GMAT Tutor

91 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts