Martin's theory

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

Martin's theory

by bhumika.k.shah » Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:34 am
According to a theory advanced
by researcher Paul Martin, the wave
of species extinctions that occurred
Line in North America about 11,000 years
(5) ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era,
can be directly attributed to the arrival
of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who
were ancestors of modern Native
Americans. However, anthropologist
(10) Shepard Krech points out that large
animal species vanished even in areas
where there is no evidence to demonstrate
that Paleoindians hunted them.
Nor were extinctions confined to large
(15) animals: small animals, plants, and
insects disappeared, presumably not
all through human consumption. Krech
also contradicts Martin's exclusion of
climatic change as an explanation by
(20) asserting that widespread climatic
change did indeed occur at the end of
the Pleistocene. Still, Krech attributes
secondary if not primary responsibility
for the extinctions to the Paleoindians,
(25) arguing that humans have produced
local extinctions elsewhere. But,
according to historian Richard White,
even the attribution of secondary
responsibility may not be supported
(30) by the evidence. White observes that
Martin's thesis depends on coinciding
dates for the arrival of humans and the
decline of large animal species, and
Krech, though aware that the dates
(35) are controversial, does not challenge
them; yet recent archaeological
discoveries are providing evidence
that the date of human arrival was
much earlier than 11,000 years ago.

Which of the following is true about Martin's theory, as that theory is described in the
passage?

A. It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival.
B. It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change.
C. It uses as evidence the fact that humans have produced local extinctions in other
situations.
D. It attempts to address the controversy over the date of human arrival in North
America.
E. It admits the possibility that factors other than the arrival of humans played a role
in the Pleistocene extinctions

OA B

Whats wrong with A??? :-(

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's
theory?

A. Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the
Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously
believed

B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals,
plants, and insects that became extinct

C. Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only
at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras

D. Researchers' discoveries that many more species became extinct in North
America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed

E. New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America
and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years
ago

OA B

In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to "recent archaeological
discoveries" (lines 36-37) most probably in order to

A. refute White's suggestion that neither Maritn nor Krech adequately account for
Paleoindians' contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions

B. cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of
the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming

C. suggest that Martin's, Krech's, and White's theories regarding the Pleistocene
extinctions are all open to question

D. call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding
the Pleistocene extinctions

E. provide support for White's questioning of both Martin's and Krech's positions
regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions

OA E - finally got it right

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by rahul.s » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:16 am
bhumika.k.shah wrote:Which of the following is true about Martin's theory, as that theory is described in the
passage?

A. It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival.
B. It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change.
C. It uses as evidence the fact that humans have produced local extinctions in other
situations.
D. It attempts to address the controversy over the date of human arrival in North
America.
E. It admits the possibility that factors other than the arrival of humans played a role
in the Pleistocene extinctions

OA B

Whats wrong with A??? :-(
although hunting is mentioned, nowhere in the passage is it actually mentioned that the paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting. so A's out. B correctly states that Mr. Martin denied the role of climatic change as a reason for the extinctions.

"Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene."
Last edited by rahul.s on Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by rahul.s » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:21 am
bhumika.k.shah wrote:Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's
theory?

A. Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the
Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously
believed

B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals,
plants, and insects that became extinct

C. Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only
at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras

D. Researchers' discoveries that many more species became extinct in North
America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed

E. New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America
and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years
ago

OA B
"Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption"

if B were true, Krech's argument would fall apart.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by rahul.s » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:22 am
bhumika.k.shah wrote:In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to "recent archaeological
discoveries" (lines 36-37) most probably in order to

A. refute White's suggestion that neither Maritn nor Krech adequately account for
Paleoindians' contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions

B. cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of
the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming

C. suggest that Martin's, Krech's, and White's theories regarding the Pleistocene
extinctions are all open to question

D. call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding
the Pleistocene extinctions

E. provide support for White's questioning of both Martin's and Krech's positions
regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions

OA E - finally got it right
well done :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:10 am

by raisethebar » Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:21 am
rahul.s wrote:
bhumika.k.shah wrote:Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's
theory?

A. Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the
Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously
believed

B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals,
plants, and insects that became extinct

C. Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only
at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras

D. Researchers' discoveries that many more species became extinct in North
America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed

E. New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America
and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years
ago

OA B
"Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption"

if B were true, Krech's argument would fall apart.
Why it couldnt be C. Krech suggest that it is climatic change that caused the extiction. So C attack on this argument.
what you say?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:56 am
raisethebar wrote:
Why it couldnt be C. Krech suggest that it is climatic change that caused the extiction. So C attack on this argument.
what you say?
the task here is to weaken Krech's objections to Martin's...not to weken Krech suggestion
krech is objecting to martin's theory by asking if humans arrival is the reason for extinction then y small plants ,animals and insects disappeared...by asking this q krech belives that these were of no use to humans
B here is attacking this assumption and is therefore weakening Krechs objection

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:46 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by aagar2003 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:16 am
Can sbdy pls explain what do following lines from the passage [22-26] convey:

Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.

What is the primary and secondary responsibility refer to?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:24 pm
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:6 members

by navami » Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:33 pm
B is the ans.

In the passage martin never says that the humans have caused extinction by haunting ( it could be some other action too)
This time no looking back!!!
Navami

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Lima - Peru

by [email protected] » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:24 pm
Hello everybody...

I'm kind of new in writting into forums, but well,,,
I'm kind of very confused in the last question on the begin of this discussion:

In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to "recent archaeological
discoveries" (lines 36-37) most probably in order to

A. refute White's suggestion that neither Maritn nor Krech adequately account for
Paleoindians' contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions

B. cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of
the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming

C. suggest that Martin's, Krech's, and White's theories regarding the Pleistocene
extinctions are all open to question

D. call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding
the Pleistocene extinctions

E. provide support for White's questioning of both Martin's and Krech's positions
regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions



In this question I agree that "the recent archaeological discoveries" support White's argument AGAINST Krench's, but NOT against Martin's . So answer choice (E) sounds perfect to me, except for questioning Martin's theory.
I have noticed, though, that on line 13, White assert that "even the attribution of secondary responsibility may be not supported be the evidence" ---

So which evidence? Obviously "the recent archaeological discoveries" that human arrival was much earlier than 11,000 years ago, which is almost the same of Martin's theory, arguing that the wave of species extinctions that occured in NA about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans!

I can infere that "if even the attribution of secondary responsibility may be not supported be the evidence", the attribution of primary responsibility is definitely out, and that is Martin's core theory.

Maybe is that I do not just completely understand how is that Martin's theory is weakened by White's argument --- what is "much earlier" 100 years?, 500?. So according to this passage I have to assume the following:

1) Humans arrived and destroyed the semi-humans or the Paleoindians.
2) Martin: Humans arrived about 11,000 years ago.
3)White: Humans arrived more than 11,000 years ago, say 20,000 years ago.

White wins because if humans arrived earlier, is not possible that humans had killed Paleoindians, must be something else.

I find this assumption weak and extreme at the same time, maybe I just have to see this question in 3 days and see if I'm still drowned by this question,,,

Please suggestions, critics, are very welcomed,,,,

Thanks in advance and sorry for the annoyance.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:53 pm
Hi!

Let's look right at the beginning of the passage:
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans...
Since the new research indicates that humans arrived "much earlier than 11,000 years ago", it directly attacks Martin's theory that the arrival (i.e. not just the presence) of humans was responsible for the mass extinctions that occurred 11000 years ago.

Hope that helps!

Stuart

ps: you seem to be treating the humans and Paleoindians as two separate groups, when in fact the text says "can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians", showing that the Paleoindians are humans.


[email protected] wrote:Hello everybody...

I'm kind of new in writting into forums, but well,,,
I'm kind of very confused in the last question on the begin of this discussion:

In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to "recent archaeological
discoveries" (lines 36-37) most probably in order to

A. refute White's suggestion that neither Maritn nor Krech adequately account for
Paleoindians' contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions

B. cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of
the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming

C. suggest that Martin's, Krech's, and White's theories regarding the Pleistocene
extinctions are all open to question

D. call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding
the Pleistocene extinctions

E. provide support for White's questioning of both Martin's and Krech's positions
regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions



In this question I agree that "the recent archaeological discoveries" support White's argument AGAINST Krench's, but NOT against Martin's . So answer choice (E) sounds perfect to me, except for questioning Martin's theory.
I have noticed, though, that on line 13, White assert that "even the attribution of secondary responsibility may be not supported be the evidence" ---

So which evidence? Obviously "the recent archaeological discoveries" that human arrival was much earlier than 11,000 years ago, which is almost the same of Martin's theory, arguing that the wave of species extinctions that occured in NA about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans!

I can infere that "if even the attribution of secondary responsibility may be not supported be the evidence", the attribution of primary responsibility is definitely out, and that is Martin's core theory.

Maybe is that I do not just completely understand how is that Martin's theory is weakened by White's argument --- what is "much earlier" 100 years?, 500?. So according to this passage I have to assume the following:

1) Humans arrived and destroyed the semi-humans or the Paleoindians.
2) Martin: Humans arrived about 11,000 years ago.
3)White: Humans arrived more than 11,000 years ago, say 20,000 years ago.

White wins because if humans arrived earlier, is not possible that humans had killed Paleoindians, must be something else.

I find this assumption weak and extreme at the same time, maybe I just have to see this question in 3 days and see if I'm still drowned by this question,,,

Please suggestions, critics, are very welcomed,,,,

Thanks in advance and sorry for the annoyance.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Lima - Peru

by [email protected] » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:04 pm
Thanks Stuart!

Messed up BIG time, it is very clear,,, I assumed that the Paleoindians were a specie of semi-hominid and they're Homo sapiens sapiens!
And yes! It is stated in the passage and I also google it, they are indeed the are the earliest known humans of the Americas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Indians)

Now I feel with a little shame for the question,,, how can I delete a post? lol

Sorry everybody I didn't say anything, I´ll go to sleep right now.

Good vibes

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: india

by mohan514 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:24 pm
why cant i pick option c in question 2

can any body please explain..

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:05 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by bigge2win » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:38 am
rahul.s wrote:
bhumika.k.shah wrote:Which of the following is true about Martin's theory, as that theory is described in the
passage?

A. It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival.
B. It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change.
C. It uses as evidence the fact that humans have produced local extinctions in other
situations.
D. It attempts to address the controversy over the date of human arrival in North
America.
E. It admits the possibility that factors other than the arrival of humans played a role
in the Pleistocene extinctions

OA B

Whats wrong with A??? :-(
although hunting is mentioned, nowhere in the passage is it actually mentioned that the paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting. so A's out. B correctly states that Mr. Martin denied the role of climatic change as a reason for the extinctions.

"Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene."
I did not choose B because I didn't think that Martin's exclusion automatically meant that he denied it. It seems to be a bit of a jump to say that his exclusion automatically means he denied it. Maybe he excluded it because it didn't occur to him that it could be a factor. There appears to be a bit of an assumption or a leap here to say the exclusion is a denial. Those two words by definition are not synonyms, and based on context, I didn't necessarily see it either.

Can someone please elaborate a little more on this?