BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Eurasians

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:3 members

Eurasians

by kaulnikhil » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:57 am
Archaeologist: A skeleton of a North American mastodon that became extinct at the peak of the Ice Age was recently discovered. It contains a human-made projectile dissimilar to any found in that part of Eurasia closest to North America. Thus, since Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age, the first Eurasian settlers in North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the archaeologist's argument?
(A) The projectile found in the mastodon does not resemble any that were used in Eurasia before or during the Ice Age.
(B) The people who occupied the Eurasian area closest to North America remained nomadic throughout the Ice Age.
(C) The skeleton of a bear from the same place and time as the mastodon skeleton contains a similar projectile.
(D) Other North American artifacts from the peak of the Ice Age are similar to ones from the same time found in more distant parts of Eurasia.
(E) Climatic conditions in North America just before the Ice Age were more conducive to human habitation than were those in the part of Eurasia closest to North America at that time.

Can some one please tell me why B cant be the right answer .
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:37 am
IMO A
it is a simple premise and conclusion structure.
Premise: projectile did not resemble to any projectile found in the part of eurasia closest to america.
simpler terms, let say well known place India. since the projectile did not resemble to any projectile found in bombay, the author states that the projectile must have come from Chennai(distant part of eurasia).

Conclusion:First Eurasian settlers in North america came from distant part of Eurasia.
Assumption: Projectile found resembled the projectile in distant part of Eurasia.

A) weakens this statement perfectly by telling that the projectile does not resemble any projectiles in the country. So it just means that Bombay/Chennai/ Delhi. it does not matter. It does not belong to country at all. so no further conclusion as to from where the first eurasian settlers came cannot be drawn.

B)simpler terms, people at Bombay are nomadic. So does it weaken the statement that the first settlers came from Chennai?
Does it weaken that the assumption??Hence wrong.

C D and E are simply out of scope!

Hope this helps!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:46 pm
IMO A
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:04 am
Yes, the correct answer is definitely choice A, and fibonnaci's reasoning is good.

The classic Kaplan method will have saved us a lot of time. Because the assumption bridges the gap between the ideas in the evidence and the idea in the conclusion, the classic Kaplan method involves looking for ideas that are differentially present in conclusion and evidence.

Notice a big idea in the evidence is this whole "projectile" business:

"it is a simple premise and conclusion structure.
Premise: projectile did not resemble to any projectile found in the part of eurasia closest to america."
(fibonnaci's post--quote attempt failed)

But notice this idea or term "projectile" is NOT in the conclusion:
Conclusion:First Eurasian settlers in North america came from distant part of Eurasia.
Thus, the arguer is definitely assuming something about projectiles:
Assumption: Projectile found resembled the projectile in distant part of Eurasia.
We weaken arguments by finding a choice that attacks the assumption. In order to attack the assumption, an answer choice has to be within the scope of the argument (since the assumption is always within the scope of the argument). Accordingly, the correct answer almost certainly has to have the term "projectile" in it. A quick scan of the answer choices reveals that only choices A and C have the term "projectile" in them. And choice C is definitely outside the scope, so choose A...done!

(The method involves generating a prediction and aggressively scanning the answer choices for a match. If you get good at it, you can say: "if this is my prediction and if it is correct, what features of my prediction almost for sure have to show up in the right answer" and then you just scan for those features. Here, the key feature or term or idea was "projectile".)
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1