Skeletal Heat

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:39 am
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members

Skeletal Heat

by kruthika » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:06 pm
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


User avatar
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

by galaxian » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:59 pm
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: 102
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:10 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

by gmatjeet » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:39 pm
[spoiler]C should be the right answer.

E cannot be the answer because human fire cannot reach such high temprature[/spoiler]

User avatar
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

by galaxian » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:45 pm
Right, but I meant Human fire inducing a big fire.

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

by fitzgerald23 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:42 pm
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.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:03 pm

by coolly01 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:46 pm
C seems right

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:39 am
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members

by kruthika » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:12 pm
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]

Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:07 pm
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.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by siddus » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:15 pm
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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:44 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by sandy217 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:51 am
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]

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:34 am
Location: India
Thanked: 310 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:750

by cans » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:22 am
IMO C
(best of all 5)
What's the OA?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:29 am
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
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:36 am
+1 for C
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)

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

by fitzgerald23 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:26 am
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.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:48 am
What's the OA???