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.
Answer: E
Skeletal Heat
- galaxian
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:51 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
C would be a direct Ans to this one, however, the reason for fire is unknown & this gives E an advantage as it could actually be the reason for fire.Still am confused.Plz Explain.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:750
I have a hard time believing this question is from a reputable source. I dont think any of these could be the answer. A adds nothing, B only talks of 1 species, C is too many years in the past, D is not enough years in the past, and E has nothing to do with anything.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:39 am
- Location: Chennai
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:3 members
C seems right but for the time period which is mentioned as 103000 years ago, whereas in our question it is 100000 years and spanned over the next 2000 years..
While in E, it is mentioned that they found hunting tools and cut wood,[spoiler] it implies that they would have probably started hunting animals to cook them in fire and eat.. Seems valid enough to me, but for the fact that we are expected to conclude/assume from the statement.[/spoiler]
While in E, it is mentioned that they found hunting tools and cut wood,[spoiler] it implies that they would have probably started hunting animals to cook them in fire and eat.. Seems valid enough to me, but for the fact that we are expected to conclude/assume from the statement.[/spoiler]
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1112
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 77 times
- Followed by:49 members
OA has to be Op C...its the only possible answer here.
Op E talks about usage of human tools, but that doesn't mean that human also know how to light fire and cook animals...Op D talked about a much later period and hence incorrect.
Op E talks about usage of human tools, but that doesn't mean that human also know how to light fire and cook animals...Op D talked about a much later period and hence incorrect.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
Are you sure E or C or any other answer makes sense? because they do nothing to resolve the paradox.
What is the paradox exactly? - That skeletal remains of several species of animals existing during a span of 2000yrs bear extreme heat signs, that don't make sense in the cold region of N. Canada.
Now, lets look at the answers -
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 in the past 100,000 cant explain the effect of high temperature on skeletal remains. Warming doesn't necessarily mean burning or scorching. It can be luke warm increase in temperature over a 100,000 yrs.
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.
***Only 1 doesn't account for many species from different bilogical families.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.
***The effect of the fire 103,000 years ago is unlikely to last for 2000 yrs now is it unless all these species of animals survived the fire, lived for 2000 yrs and then perished
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.
***Strong contender. If humans invented fire 70,000 years ago, it is likely that they hunted and cooked the poor animals over a large period of time. The period of 2000 years is consistent with this discovery. This explains both side of the paradox - unusual temperature effects on animal remains spanning over several years in a very cold region.
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.
***How can this explain the paradox? It merely states that during the same period, Humans existed and used tools. Did they even invent fire during this time? Can the tools cause the burns in the skeletal remains? All these are assumptions.
HTH
What is the paradox exactly? - That skeletal remains of several species of animals existing during a span of 2000yrs bear extreme heat signs, that don't make sense in the cold region of N. Canada.
Now, lets look at the answers -
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 in the past 100,000 cant explain the effect of high temperature on skeletal remains. Warming doesn't necessarily mean burning or scorching. It can be luke warm increase in temperature over a 100,000 yrs.
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.
***Only 1 doesn't account for many species from different bilogical families.
C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.
***The effect of the fire 103,000 years ago is unlikely to last for 2000 yrs now is it unless all these species of animals survived the fire, lived for 2000 yrs and then perished
D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.
***Strong contender. If humans invented fire 70,000 years ago, it is likely that they hunted and cooked the poor animals over a large period of time. The period of 2000 years is consistent with this discovery. This explains both side of the paradox - unusual temperature effects on animal remains spanning over several years in a very cold region.
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.
***How can this explain the paradox? It merely states that during the same period, Humans existed and used tools. Did they even invent fire during this time? Can the tools cause the burns in the skeletal remains? All these are assumptions.
HTH
Though it might look trivial.Does stimulus state North america is cold?Can a official question be framed such a way? I doubt.
Trust me i reread the stimulus more than twice to trace information on cold. [/img]
Trust me i reread the stimulus more than twice to trace information on cold. [/img]
- HSPA
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
- Thanked: 47 times
- Followed by:13 members
- GMAT Score:640
I was expecting a volcanic eruption block all the paths of escape for animals. Yes this is close to C.
Fire = volcano based .. let us assume a little.
IMO C
Fire = volcano based .. let us assume a little.
IMO C
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
- vikram4689
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1325
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
- Thanked: 105 times
- Followed by:14 members
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:750
The problem with C is the time frame. Its clearly a trap style answer. The passage tells us that the remains were dated around 100000 years ago. The fire occurred over 103000 years ago. That means there is an excellent chance these remains were never exposed to that fire.
On its face it doesnt seem like much time difference, but we are not talking about just 3 years. We are talking about 3000 years. Thats a large timeframe. And if people are able to date with relative accuracy to 103000 that it stands to reason that the 100000 estimate is also pretty close to 100000. It would say 103000 years if it was dated to then.
On its face it doesnt seem like much time difference, but we are not talking about just 3 years. We are talking about 3000 years. Thats a large timeframe. And if people are able to date with relative accuracy to 103000 that it stands to reason that the 100000 estimate is also pretty close to 100000. It would say 103000 years if it was dated to then.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1112
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 77 times
- Followed by:49 members