Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 20:48

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin,

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 251
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 29

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2009, 03:32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

59% (03:56) correct 41% (01:48) wrong based on 18 sessions
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred Line in North America about 11,000 years 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 Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demon-strate that Paleoindians hunted them.Nor were extinctions confined to large 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 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, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.

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

Please explain in a detailed way.Nice explanation will be appreciated with kudos :)) . OA after explanations.
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks :)

Current Student
User avatar
Status: What's your raashee?
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1847
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 202 [0], given: 52

Reviews Badge
Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2009, 04:56
perfectstranger wrote:
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred Line in North America about 11,000 years 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 Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demon-strate that Paleoindians hunted them.Nor were extinctions confined to large 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 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, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.

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

Please explain in a detailed way.Nice explanation will be appreciated with kudos :)) . OA after explanations.


B
A. this will strengthen Krech's theory since he said climate change would affect the animals etc.
B. This seem to be good. Krech argued not only big animals but plants, insects etc. were also extinct - noting humans prob didnt cause them. But B shows that humans were using them so it weakens the argument they weren't harming those things.
C. Similar to A. It would only strengthen Krech
D. Irrelevant to the question.
E. It doesnt matter - they are not arguing about time
_________________

If you like my answers please +1 kudos!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 21

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2009, 05:19
Martin's theory : Extinction was due to arrival of human at the end of Pleistocene era.

Krech's theory : Large animals vanished elsewhere too.
And, not only large animals did extinct.
Climate change also occurred at the same time.
Human interface was secondary.

We have to weaken Krech's opposition to Martin's theory.

Krech contradicts Martin's theory by saying that climate change occurred at the end of Pleistocene era.

It is explicitly mentioned in the passage in line - 'Krech also contradicts Martin’s exclusion.....'.

Choice 'C' says climate changes have occurred even in previous and subsequent Pleistocene eras. So clearly, this is not the reason for extinction.

All of the , B, D & E support one way or the other to Krech's theory.

Am I correct ?
_________________

I am ready to fall, but not before I fly.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 21

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2009, 05:19
[quote=shaselai]B. This seem to be good. Krech argued not only big animals but plants, insects etc. were also extinct - noting humans prob didnt cause them. But B shows that humans were using them so it weakens the argument they weren't harming those things.[/quote]

Passage explicitly says - Krech attributes secondary responsibility to humans. 'B' supports Krech in that small animals & plants also extincted.
_________________

I am ready to fall, but not before I fly.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 359
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 32

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2009, 19:30
B.

OA pls.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 909
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 234 [0], given: 18

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2009, 21:59
alpeshvc wrote:
[quote=shaselai]B. This seem to be good. Krech argued not only big animals but plants, insects etc. were also extinct - noting humans prob didnt cause them. But B shows that humans were using them so it weakens the argument they weren't harming those things.


Passage explicitly says - Krech attributes secondary responsibility to humans. 'B' supports Krech in that small animals & plants also extincted.[/quote]
small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption

C says that humans consumed small species too, and hence they were responsible for the extinction.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 316
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 9

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 00:35
what's the source of this question?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 165
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 8

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 04:12
IMO B...
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 106

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 09:11
IMO C.
Economist wrote:
Passage explicitly says - Krech attributes secondary responsibility to humans. 'B' supports Krech in that small animals & plants also extincted. small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption

C says that humans consumed small species too, and hence they were responsible for the extinction.


B is in line with the argument of Krech.

Krech said climatic change is not included in the Martin's theory and it could be the reason for the extinction of the species.
C says that climatic changes happened before too but did not result in the extinction of the species.
* ===> Only issue here I see is that we need to make an assumption in C that similar wave of extinction did not happen in the previous and subsequent eras.*
still C is the best option here.
Opinions please!
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 282
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 18

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 10:41
IMO C.. wat is the OA
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 05 Sep 2009, 12:31
Situation:

Paul Martin believes that the arrival of humans i.e. the Paleoindians were the responsible factor for species extinction
Shepard Krech believes that the human is not the primary responsible factors for the species extinctions, climate is.

What will weaken Krech's objection/belief?

If the climate changes that is claimed to have cause extinction had been there before the humans arrived, and the species were still there when the humans arrived, the climate changes clearly did not cause the extinction. This finding therefore weaken Krech's belief that climate was the responsible factor.

A The severity of the climate changes were not linked to the extinction, this could strengthen Krech's belief
B The indication that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects does not indicate that human hunt (cause extinction) and made use of them.
C This clearly weaken Krech's belief by stating that the similar climate changes that took place before human arrivals did not cause the extinction
D The argument focus on the cause of the extinction, not on the number of extinct species
E The earlier indication of human arrival and Pleistocene extinctions further complicate the argument


IMO C
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 196
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 1

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 05 Sep 2009, 13:45
perfectstranger wrote:
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred Line in North America about 11,000 years 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 Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demon-strate that Paleoindians hunted them.Nor were extinctions confined to large 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 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, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.

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

Please explain in a detailed way.Nice explanation will be appreciated with kudos :)) . OA after explanations.


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
Strengthens rather than weaken "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"B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
CORRECT..."Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption"
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
Nowwhere does that passage say that Kretch considers CLIMATIC CHANGES as the primary factor for human exinction.That will be an over-inference.
D. Researchers’ discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed "OUT OF CONTEXT"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 "DOESNOT WEAKEN KRETCH'S OBJECTIONS"
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1691
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 299 [0], given: 36

Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 11 May 2011, 23:53
The OA is B, please see here :

http://www.beatthegmat.com/martin-s-theory-t50855.html
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

VP
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1364
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 10

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 12 May 2011, 02:50
clean B here.
Tussle between B and C,where C attributes extinction to climate while B does to humans.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 658
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 51

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 19 May 2011, 09:03
took me almost 3:30 min to finalize B.
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Completed GMAT on 22 Nov 2011
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 167
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 12

Re: Shepard Krech [#permalink] New post 08 Jun 2011, 04:30
IMO C
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Jan 2014
Posts: 71
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 77

Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, [#permalink] New post 04 Feb 2014, 19:36
Here is my explaination why B is better than C. Hope it helps.

The following sentence in the paragraph is about C.

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.

Martin:this extinction has no relationship with climate change.
Krech:this extinction has relationship with climate change:occur at THE END OF the Pleistocene.

Here is 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.

If the climate change happened in PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT eras, then we can assume that the extinction should be early,according to the words by Krech. right? But it happened at the end of the Pleistocene era. So the climate have no connection with the extinction.So we can exclude this factor, i.e. , Krech was wrong and Martin was right. C is wrong.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2014
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, [#permalink] New post 03 May 2014, 19:57
Samsmalldog

I think most of your reasoning is right. If C is true, then Krech is wrong. Doesn't C weaken Krech's objection already?

Can someone clarify this question please. I am super confused. Thanks
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 10
GMAT Date: 06-24-2014
GPA: 2.75
WE: Project Management (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, [#permalink] New post 03 May 2014, 21:36
A. Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene era was even more severe a
nd widespread than was previously blieved

B. New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct - correct! Clearly contradicts to the information given above.

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
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin,   [#permalink] 03 May 2014, 21:36
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
According to most evolutionary theories, a GHIBI 3 14 Jan 2008, 22:42
Darwin was not the first to advance a theory of evolution; shahnandan 10 13 Jun 2006, 18:32
Darwin was not the first to advance a theory of evolution; Puilunchristin 3 25 Feb 2006, 12:04
Darwin was not the first to advance a theory of evolution; Antmavel 5 13 Nov 2005, 19:27
Darwin was not the first to advance a theory of evolution; nakib77 5 26 Oct 2005, 12:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin,

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.