Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 15:36

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 331
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2005, 18:55
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

67% (02:32) correct 33% (04:12) wrong based on 3 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed these bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles:

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis spelled out by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.

(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.

(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist.

(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.

(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 404
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 00:54
C it is!
VP
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1118
Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 01:00
C for me too

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis spelled out by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.

(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.

(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist.

(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.

(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold. (not sure but not precise enough for me)

Last edited by Antmavel on 20 Sep 2005, 01:02, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 54
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 01:01
coffeeloverfreak wrote:
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed these bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles:

Is it A

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis spelled out by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.

(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.

(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist.

(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.

(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 257
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 09:00
I'm really stuck between A and C.

the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly.

Doesn't this sentence represent what the author thinks? If so, why would C be correct?

Also, the "spelled out" part of choice A confuses me.

All in all, I'll go with A on this one.
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1723
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 327 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 11:52
its a tough one.... i am choosing A.
_________________

hey ya......

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 484
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 11:58
IMO clearly A
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 331
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 17:19
OA is A.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 257
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 18:45
ranga41 wrote:
IMO clearly A

Ranga41, can you explain more? I'm still having trouble grasping this one.
Director
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 798
Location: Singapore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 19:38
This is a clear A for me too!

The author challenges the fact that cold destroyed these creatures outrightly! Instead, he gives his hypothesis that cold could have killed it but indirectly - So the first part of the bold is clearly what the author proposes or introduces.

Its not B - Its not a hypothesis introduced by the paleontoligist (urgh...the spelling!)
ITs not C - Its not challenged by the P, remember P just made a statement, he did not challenge anything here
Its clearly not D
ITs not D - coz its not P's statement, its the author's statement.

The second bold part is the specific example or evidence that the author provides to prove his point. So its A

Hope this clarifies!
_________________

Cheers, Rahul.

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 847
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2005, 19:39
hmmm... has me stumped still. Had me going for D, guess I didn't read A well enough! But I can't agree with C. Infact, the first is something the scientist agrees with and bases his hypothesis on. So, I thought both the bold phrases are judgements.
Ranga, pl. elaborate!
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 484
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2005, 05:41
popew626 wrote:
ranga41 wrote:
IMO clearly A

Ranga41, can you explain more? I'm still having trouble grasping this one.

I understand you have trouble rejecting C, but IMO C can be easily rejected because

(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist

Choice C says the first bold face is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist, but I dont see any challenge in that bold face....
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

21 Sep 2005, 05:41
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 About two million years ago, lava dammed up a river in western Asia 6 18 Dec 2015, 01:29
31 Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species 15 29 Dec 2012, 00:09
Some paleontologists believe that certain species of 7 25 Nov 2011, 08:42
9 Some scientists believe that 65 million years ago an 28 27 Sep 2009, 10:14
3 CR Twenty years ago. 14 29 Mar 2008, 13:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by