Early post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of the Middle East and Europe

Question

Early post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of the Middle East and Europe sought to compensate for shortages of the animals and plants on which they subsisted by learning to plant crops and domesticate animals. But such agricultural practices often required clearing the forest lands that those animals and plants had needed in order to flourish.

The statements above most logically lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

A. Adoption of agricultural practices by human beings was advantageous for some nonhuman species but made others extinct.

B. Adoption of agricultural practices by human beings required advances in techniques for making tools.

C. Adoption of agricultural practices by human beings enabled them to live lifelong in one location.

D. Adoption of the agricultural lifestyle forced major changes in the family structures of human communities.

E. Adoption of the agricultural lifestyle by human beings may have eventually exacerbated a problem that it had initially helped to mitigate.

sayan640 · Answer

This one is too easy . If the forest land required by the animals and plants get vanished , then those animals and plants will also soon vanish. It will obviously exacerbate the problem for the human beings . 
E is the answer.

In option C , "Live lifelong " is too extreme and also not implied in the passage.

Posted from my mobile device

sachi-in · Answer

All options ( except correct one ) are not even nearly related to the passage. Makes for easy elimination.

Food shortages -> growing more plants / rearing more animals -> less forest cover -> plants / animals flourish less -> food production low ( may lead to shortages )

E . This lifestyle exacerbated the problem it was supposed to reduce. -  Correct

ManifestMBAbay25 · Answer

bb Can you please help why A can not be the answer.

speedemon · Answer

I know I am not bb but here is my perspective. I eliminated option A because it states that the plants and animals who required the forest land went extinct, which the passage does not explicitly provide evidence for and neither does it imply anything about extinction of species. Hence, E becomes the answer. Hope it helps!

ManifestMBAbay25

bb Can you please help why A can not be the answer.

vineet6316 · Answer

Remember on conclusion problems in CR you are looking for a  ‘must be true’  answer choice.

Choice A is wrong because the passage does not provide enough information to support it.

The argument states that:
1. Hunter-gatherers turned to farming to solve a food shortage of animals and plants.
2. But this farming often required clearing the very forests these animals and plants needed to live.

The logical conclusion is that   the solution (farming) may have worsened the original problem (food shortages).     This is what choice E says.

Why Choice A is Not Supported?
 
The passage only mentions the  negative impact  of agriculture: clearing forests that animals and plants "had needed in order to flourish." There is no information in the text to suggest that agriculture was beneficial for any nonhuman species. The passage focuses on a single cause-and-effect chain: agriculture's adoption led to deforestation, which harmed the species the hunter-gatherers relied on.

Early post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of the Middle East and Europe

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Early post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of the Middle East and Europe

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards