Critical Reasoning

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.

IMO [spoiler]A
[/spoiler]
Option B weakens the findings.
Option C talks about 103000 years while skeletons are of age 100000+/- 2000 years.
Option D talks about humans using fire to cook in 70000 years ago,irrelevant to the timeline in question.
Option E talks of handmade tools.

gmatmachoman 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.-Warming is in the atmosphere not underground.
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.-But in the para its written many species.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.-This is 100,000 +3000 years(3% differnce)-Thus appropriate.
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.-Huge time difference(100,000 - 70000)
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.-Totally out of context.

IMO C is the answer

gmatmachoman 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. not equal to from about 100 000 years ago
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. Weakens, no clue how come northern part of Canada could experience high temperatures.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada. could be the answer.
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals. wrong timeline, 100 000 years ago => 70 000 years ago => now
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. irrelevant

OA plz

You two have a little critical reasoning war going on here.

I am going to side with Harsh on this one.


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. - Does not explain the paradox
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. - Argument talks about Many Species, not one particular species.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada. - Explains the paradox.
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals. - Ok, but we are concerned with 100,000 years ago.
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. - Out of scope

northern canada a cold climate region has skeletal remains of animals that show temperatures exceeded 538 deg cel 100,000 years back.

so how can we prove this hot and cold thing together without disproving any one side?

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.considerable warming cannot mean 538 deg cel. Eliminated!]

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.[ does this say why the temp raised so drastically in such a cold climate region? No. Eliminated]

C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.[Now this explains the paradox. Due to the fire, the temp incrased to 538 deg cel and tats wat the fossil remains show. Correct!]

D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.[ now we have a bad habit of bringing in human at every point. this occured way later after the temp increased thing happen. moreover i never knew humans cook with 538 deg cel..do u?? Eliminated!]

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.[let them find tools or swords. do they talk about why the temp raises?? Eliminated!]

BTW IMO this is one of the easiest question gmatmachoman has posted for us. i guess he is having mercy on poor souls like us

Hope this helps!

Totally confused!!! if the answer is C

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).

C. A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada

The key phrase from the stimulus - "spanned about two thousand years"

Skeletal remains dated at 100k years ago. They spanned 2k years..hence clearly the large fire broke out 1000 years before the date mentioned!!!! C is a shell game for me....

But others don't seem any good either!! some force-fitting is needed

Is the source reliable??? I think C and E are contenders!!!

Now you've got me all confused. E is definitely not the answer, If only i had a penny for every time i said that i found out that i was wrong :-p.

Guys what is your opinion on LSAT CR, is it worth doing LSAT CR a week prior to the big day?

Honestly, i would like to know the OA before explaining....if the OA is E then i think i have a logic

But surely not C for me

Reverse Engineering does not work on the real test

IMO C.

But the +- 2000 years is niggling. All skeletal remains should mean no species or animal died of natural cause. The fire spread over 2000 years and destroyed all species.

Reverse engineering i prefer reverse engg to looking like a fool explaining the wrong answer!!!

Anyway,

I think any answer choice that proves that fire and cold conditions co-existed resolves the paradox.

Cold conditions is a given in all the 5 options, hence look for an option that proves that "fire" existed.

C and E both indirectly prove that fire existed 100,000 years ago.

C says that fire existed some 3000 years before the 100k date. Hence i can safely assume that fire existed at the 100 k mark too, unless i encounter a more direct answer choice.

Now let's look at 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

Clear effort has been made to single out "same" twice. - This keyword implies a more direct and relevant approach i am looking for.

Besides clear effort has been made to single out "wood cutting tools" - hence wood was used back then

Let's analyse....why would people use wood???? either to make furniture or to make fire.....

Common sense tells me that fire precedes furniture in human evolution, hence I will safely assume that wood was used to make fire, specially when wood cutting tools were found along with hunting tools!!!

Basically kill them, cook them and eat them!!!!

Cooking existed hence fire existed 100,000 years ago...will go with E.....but i could be way off the mark..

If the credited choice (not necessarily the right answer) is indeed E for the reasons mentioned above, then this is perhaps the toughest Q i have encountered

viidyasagar wrote:Reverse engineering i prefer reverse engg to looking like a fool explaining the wrong answer!!!

Anyway,

I think any answer choice that proves that fire and cold conditions co-existed resolves the paradox.

Cold conditions is a given in all the 5 options, hence look for an option that proves that "fire" existed.

C and E both indirectly prove that fire existed 100,000 years ago.

C says that fire existed some 3000 years before the 100k date. Hence i can safely assume that fire existed at the 100 k mark too, unless i encounter a more direct answer choice.

Now let's look at 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

Clear effort has been made to single out "same" twice. - This keyword implies a more direct and relevant approach i am looking for.

Besides clear effort has been made to single out "wood cutting tools" - hence wood was used back then

Let's analyse....why would people use wood???? either to make furniture or to make fire.....

Common sense tells me that fire precedes furniture in human evolution, hence I will safely assume that wood was used to make fire, specially when wood cutting tools were found along with hunting tools!!!

Basically kill them, cook them and eat them!!!!

Cooking existed hence fire existed 100,000 years ago...will go with E.....but i could be way off the mark..

If the credited choice (not necessarily the right answer) is indeed E for the reasons mentioned above, then this is perhaps the toughest Q i have encountered

Bingo.... OA is E

Guys... I know u all are " hating" me for coming up with this question..

@Fibo: "BTW IMO this is one of the easiest question gmatmachoman has posted for us. i guess he is having mercy on poor souls like us "

Hmmm.. I am not sure this i s a easy one or not!!

Vidyasagar..U have done a great job... Cheers.. I really appreciate u for the nailing the query!! I know , aftre seeing the answer u will certainly feel proud..& u r worth of it !!

I can't stop laughing but i think this Q is way too tough for the GMAT....there are folks who are gonna take the exam in another week's time or so!!!! i don't think this Q is representative of a GMAT toughie...

If i were taking the test in another week's time then I would focus on the OG, on the explanations in the OG, nail the mindset of the official test makers, revisit expert posts and other important posts on BTG, flashcards, flashcards, flashcards, revise idiom list and solve GMAT Prep among other things.

Hey Mac,

What's the damn source of this Q very well done to you, yet again!!!

Vidya,

I am not sure where I got this CR. My GF said ..if I can solve this one with in 1 min I will crack GMAT & score more than 740...sort of kido & a teaser....U know how ppl bet for every other thing!! LOL!!

Luckily I did that...so thought of sharing with u all!!

Actually C was a bait & a shell game...

Agreed that, these sort of questions will take u for a TOSS if u r having Real test in a week or so..

Hey u saw my signature..Man i have used ur name as "courtsey" Hope u have no issue with it..BTW its u shared the info & I had a BIG LOL at that moment...

I asked Fibo & komal to go thru them also...