Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 12:33 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 12:33

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 605-655 Levelx   Additional Evidencex   Strengthenx                  
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 252 [250]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Mumbai
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [116]
Given Kudos: 130
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [53]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2003
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: california
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Agree on "E"

D only indicates that the use of fire was 500,000 years ago, but the charred bones were dated back 1 million years. Thus, there is a large time gap between the two evidences.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 71
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
1
Kudos
boarderlee wrote:
Agree on "E"

D only indicates that the use of fire was 500,000 years ago, but the charred bones were dated back 1 million years. Thus, there is a large time gap between the two evidences.


Okay guys, lets structure the arguments in the stimulus.

1) Charred bone fragments of animals found, dating back a million years

2) The bone fragments had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires

The question asked is, which choice best supports the claim that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids

Now E only points that bone fragments were found with cutting tools used by early hominids. This means that the hominids could have known how to use the tools, but do not support the argument that they used fire.

D supports the claim because it says that, "there is reliable evidence that early hominids used fire as many as 500 thousand years ago."

Remember, the question does not claim that early hominids used fire A MILLION YEARS AGO, but only that they used fire. Therefore, D supports the argument best.

Mistdew, whats the answer?
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 86
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [11]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Hyderabad
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
7
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
The answer should be E.
Reasons:

A : Irrelavant to the topic i.e. use of fire by homonids
B : This will actually waken the argument 'coz this could be a potential reason for finding of the bones
C : Though it speaks about the various animals that were formed from bones, it doesn't say if the homonids really burnt these animals for consuming or what so ever
D : Though this states that the early homonids used fire, it doesnot in any way support that the charred bones are evidnece of use of fire by early homonids. Also, there is a dispute of time. While this statement refers to a period about 500,000 years ago, the question talks about a period 1 million years ago
E : Answer : The bone fragments are found in the same strata as that of the tools used by the homonids, meaning, there is all possibility of them being used by the homonids. Since the question does not talk about the homonids, we need to find that answer which relates the homonids to the charred bones.

Comments/ Views invited.
Krishna
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Affiliations: SAE
Posts: 380
Own Kudos [?]: 961 [0]
Given Kudos: 269
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
I got confused between D and E. Although "E" link the tools found with the bones to early hominids, it does not explain the two inherent drawbacks:
1) Early hominids does not exactly mean those who lived a million years ago
2) How is tool related to fire

Compared to E, D is more suitable but the OA does not agree.
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4379
Own Kudos [?]: 32860 [3]
Given Kudos: 4452
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
3
Kudos
I have to understand the situation

Here what we care about is this

Quote:
In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragments dating back 1 million years. Analysis of the fragments, which came from a variety of animals, showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood, the most common tree around Swartkans.


E show that in different layers we have the evidence that the fragments ARE the same of a campfire. So, if the fragments are the same (different place, time, heated temperature and so on......the hominidis used fire)

D only says that hominidis used fire at some date but nothing else. we DO NOT have correlation between bones and fire and the use of the latter.

Hope it is clear now :)
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Affiliations: SAE
Posts: 380
Own Kudos [?]: 961 [0]
Given Kudos: 269
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
Hi Mike

Thanks for the explanation. :-D I have one more point of view

What if the hominids along with their pet-animals died in the forest fire and then again in subsequent fires? E will make total sense in that respect too but it will not support the use of fire by the hominids.

Thus the whole agenda boils down to prove that the charred bones were not burned in a forest fire.

If we look at the stem, it states that "temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood" which implies that only the branches were burned whereas in a forest fire the whole tree(branch+stem) would burn. Also the temperature produced would be different in a forest fire because of the presence of other kinds of trees. Are my assumptions correct?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [4]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
4
Kudos
Expert Reply
getgyan wrote:
Hi Mike

Thanks for the explanation. :-D I have one more point of view

What if the hominids along with their pet-animals died in the forest fire and then again in subsequent fires? E will make total sense in that respect too but it will not support the use of fire by the hominids.

Thus the whole agenda boils down to prove that the charred bones were not burned in a forest fire.

If we look at the stem, it states that "temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood" which implies that only the branches were burned whereas in a forest fire the whole tree(branch+stem) would burn. Also the temperature produced would be different in a forest fire because of the presence of other kinds of trees. Are my assumptions correct?


Dear Getgyan

Part of the problem here is --- you are digging extra-deep into a question that is of questionable quality. Remember, this is one of the questions the OG decided to jettison.

First of all, the idea of "pets" I believe is not 1M ya, but something more recent in human history. Even herding of animals was a relatively recent innovation, compared to the earlier hunting and gathering societies that existed during most of humanid evolution. More to the point, if humans & animals died together, they would have found charred human bones along with the charred animals bones --- that would be too important a finding to omit from the description. In other words, if they found charred human & animals bones, and said only "charred animals bones were found", that omission would constitute a level of pure deceit that you simply are not going to find in GMAT CR passages.

Look at this statement "Analysis of the fragments ... showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood." What this says is: there is some ceiling temperature T, and the bones never got hotter than that. As it happens, T is also the temperature at which stinkwood campfires would burn. We know nothing else. We don't know if T is 800 K or 5000 K. We don't know whether stinkwood is the coolest burning or hottest burning wood in the forest. If there were a forest fire --- of course, a forest fire is a big thing, and it has a middle and an edge. How does the temperature at the middle compare to T? How does the temperature at the edge compare to T? Presumably, at any forest fire, there are some animals who die in the center, and their bones are just incinerated to ash, but there are also some on the periphery, maybe which die largely of asphyxiation, whose bones might just be charred but not incinerated. ----- In short, there is a lot we don't know about this statement and its potential implications. Other than establishing a plausible link between the charred bones and stinkwood campfires, we can't necessarily use it to prove or disprove anything else.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 530
Own Kudos [?]: 523 [0]
Given Kudos: 916
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
what is an assumption for this argument.?

pls help.
the argument is

from chared bone---------> person use fire

what is assumption here? pls do not say more, pls, just tell me an assumption. nothing more.

after getting an assumption, I will continue to post a question
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
thangvietnam wrote:
what is an assumption for this argument.?
pls help.
the argument is
from charred bone---------> person use fire
what is assumption here? pls do not say more, pls, just tell me an assumption. nothing more.
after getting an assumption, I will continue to post a question

Dear thangvietnam,
With all due respect, you are asking the wrong question. It's as if the question were "find the area of the circle", and you are asking how many vertices the shape has. What you are asking is a question that doesn't really make sense in context.

You see, the prompt here is really just a set of evidence --- there's not really an "argument" in the prompt paragraph, just evidence. The conclusion is actually not in the prompt paragraph at all but in the question, and you need another piece of evidence (from among the answer choices) to establish this conclusion. You can't really even begin to identify an assumption until after you pick the correct answer, so trying to start the question by identifying an assumption is a strategy doomed to failure.

Yes, I know that "identify the assumption" is an approach that works in a large number of CR, but on the GMAT, you can never afford to be a one-trick pony --- there's no "one size fits all" strategy that you can use on every single question. The GMAT will give you enough variety that you have to be flexible and resourceful in how you approach the problems.

Does that make sense?

Mike :-)
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 530
Own Kudos [?]: 523 [0]
Given Kudos: 916
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
Dear Mike

you are correct that for many types of question, starting a question by identifying an assumption works well.

but for this type of question what do you do after you read the argument and the question? you have to know what you will find in the answer choices before you read and analyse answer choices.

what is your goal in reading the answer choices. ? pls detail your thinking process.

Thank you Mike.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [2]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
thangvietnam wrote:
Dear Mike
you are correct that for many types of question, starting a question by identifying an assumption works well.
but for this type of question what do you do after you read the argument and the question? you have to know what you will find in the answer choices before you read and analyse answer choices.
what is your goal in reading the answer choices. ? pls detail your thinking process.
Thank you Mike.

Dear thangvietnam
First of all, your statement "you have to know what you will find in the answer choices before you read and analyse answer choices" is FALSE in general. In the very specific cases of "find the assumption" or "strengthen/weaken the question", then yes, it's good to identify the assumption before you read the answer choices. For those three specific CR question types, your statement is true. In other CR question types, especially unusually ones like this, we have absolutely no way to anticipate how the answer choices will impact the logic of the argument, and hence there is no way to avoid reading and analyzing each answer choices.

See this article about different CR question types:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/save-time- ... questions/

Remember, if you try to approach the GMAT CR with recipes and formulas, the GMAT will obliterate you. On the CR, the GMAT demands flexible critical reasoning.

I have already written quite a bit about this argument in the posts above, so I am not going to go through a full analysis here. The procedures, briefly, would be --- for each answer choice, read the choice, and then evaluate whether this choice, in conjunction with the evidence in the prompt paragraph, supports the claim "that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids." Let me know if you have any specific questions about answer choices that I have not already discussed above.

Mike
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 530
Own Kudos [?]: 523 [0]
Given Kudos: 916
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
thank you Mike
I read the articles already.

there is no strategy for this type of argument. this is strengthen/weaken question but this question dose not require prethink an assumption.

what we do after we read/understand argurment and before we read/analyse the answer choices, for this type of question. ?

"look for what increase the belief that the 2 pieces of evidence are related"

is what we need to know before going to answer choices.

is that right?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [2]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
thangvietnam wrote:
thank you Mike
I read the articles already.
there is no strategy for this type of argument. this is strengthen/weaken question but this question dose not require prethink an assumption.
what we do after we read/understand argument and before we read/analyse the answer choices, for this type of question. ?
"look for what increase the belief that the 2 pieces of evidence are related"
is what we need to know before going to answer choices.
is that right?

Yes. You see, the GMAT excels at producing question that demand flexible logical reasoning. You absolutely cannot afford to get stuck in a rut, applying the same routine to each question. Instead, many GMAT CR questions demand something entirely new, analysis unlike that demanded by any previous question. This question is an example of such a question. It is not a "question type." It is an out-of-the-blue question all of its own, and you have to engage deeply with the logic of the situation itself. Many questions on the CR, both in the OG and on the real GMAT, will be just like this. Yes, there are a few "types", like "find the assumption", where you definitely can do some "pre-thinking" before you look at the answer choices. Nevertheless, do not get attached to that luxury. Many questions ask you to engage the logic-in-context of the situation, and there's no recipe/procedure/method that will save you from this deep and contextual logical reasoning.

Here's a post that discusses this a little more.
Formal Logic and GMAT CR

Do you know the magazine entitled The Economist? I would highly recommend this magazine, both for the tremendous overview of world political and economic issues it provides, and for high level of language, rhetoric, and argument is maintains. See this post:
Reading for the GMAT: The Economist
If you read the argument in that magazine--you will be reading messy real world arguments, arguments that are inextricable bound to what is unique to each situation. You cannot use recipes or formulas to understand these arguments. You need to understand context itself. Reading The Economist magazine would give you excellent preparation for the wild diversity of possible arguments in the GMAT CR.

Think about it. The whole point of the CR section on the GMAT, the reason business schools consider this an important topic, is that in the business world you will face new situations and new arguments and new issues all the time. The folks who respond to a new situation or argument with formulaic methods will not get everything out of the situation that he could. By contrast, the person who recognizes the unique logic of each new context --- the person will be on the cutting edge, always poised to draw profit from each new challenge.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Status:Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Posts: 337
Own Kudos [?]: 1899 [1]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: United States (DE)
GPA: 3.32
WE:Information Technology (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
A) can be eliminated

B) this answer choice, if true, would weaken the claim that the charred bone fragments are an evidence of the use of fire by the early hominids. Because, it is giving an alternative explanation (charred bone fragments could have been the result of a forest fire rather than of the use of fire by early hominids).

C) we already know from the text that these charred bone fragments come from a variety of animals. can be eliminated.

D) this choice does not answer the question whether early hominids used fire 1 million years ago or not.

E) the only possible solution.
We already know from the text that these charred bones came from animals. we also know that they were heated to high temperatures and most probably branches of trees in question had been used.
We only have to find the agents of the action. And only E gives the best choice.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Posts: 198
Own Kudos [?]: 41 [0]
Given Kudos: 288
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
AjiteshArun
Can you please brief how does E provides additional evidence ?
It is just talking about cutting tools no link with the fire.
How does it support they used fire ?
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5179
Own Kudos [?]: 4652 [6]
Given Kudos: 626
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
4
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
teaserbae wrote:
AjiteshArun
Can you please brief how does E provides additional evidence ?
It is just talking about cutting tools no link with the fire.
How does it support they used fire ?
All we know is that charred bone fragments were found, and that they had been heated to "campfire temperatures". Now suddenly we are asked to pick an option that helps show ("through" the bone fragments) that early hominids used fire. This is impossible without some additional information, as there is currently no connection at all between the bone fragments and early hominids.

One way to establish the connection we need is to directly link the bone fragments to hominids. Another way is to introduce something that is common to both. So early hominids are "connected" to X, and X is "connected" to the bone fragments, and therefore there is a connection between hominids and the bone fragments. That's what option E does:

The bone fragments were found in several distinct layers of limestone that contained primitive cutting tools known to have been used by early hominids.

E tells us that the tools (a) are definitely "connected" to hominids, and (b) were found in the "same layers" as the bone fragments, which establishes a link between the tools and the bone fragments. Now we have a connection between hominids and the bone fragments.

It's important to remember that even if the connection that E provides is not particularly strong, it is still the best option out of the 5 that are given to us. Because the other options are irrelevant (or weaken the claim), we should look at E as the best of the 5 and mark it as the answer.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2019
Posts: 92
Own Kudos [?]: 66 [0]
Given Kudos: 25
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 720 Q47 V42
GPA: 3.5
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
Hi experts, I was wondering what they mean by early hominid
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne