|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1635
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 25
Kudos [?]:
119
[0], given: 2
|
Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over [#permalink]
15 May 2010, 06:35
Question Stats:
22% (02:51) correct
77% (01:55) wrong based on 4 sessions
Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe. However, since the footprints indicate that if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot. Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson’s conclusion. The disagreement between the two paleontologists is over which one of the following? (A) the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence (B) the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints (C) the possibility of using the evidence of footprints to determine the gait of the creature that made those footprints (D) the assumption that evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion (E) the likelihood that early hominids would have walked upright on two feet Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion? (A) The foot prints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least two distinct individuals. (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. (C) Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G, and the two sets of footprints are contemporaneous. (D) When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some of the footprints were erased. (E) Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals with hooves.
_________________
The sky is the limit 800 is the limit
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 301
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
15 May 2010, 07:12
noboru wrote: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe. However, since the footprints indicate that if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot. Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson’s conclusion.
The disagreement between the two paleontologists is over which one of the following? (A) the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence (B) the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints (C) the possibility of using the evidence of footprints to determine the gait of the creature that made those footprints (D) the assumption that evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion (E) the likelihood that early hominids would have walked upright on two feet
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion? (A) The foot prints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least two distinct individuals. (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. (C) Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G, and the two sets of footprints are contemporaneous. (D) When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some of the footprints were erased. (E) Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals with hooves. I must say the question is tricky..!! For first question, IMO, A and B are the only contenders. Finally A. Why not B: I don't think that any of the paleontologists is assuming that "early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints" For second question Conclusion:"they are clearly early hominid footprints" B weakens the conclusion..!! OA plz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 959
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
555
[0], given: 40
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
15 May 2010, 07:34
IMO: 1. A 2. A 1. Dr. T is arguing on the structure of foot print while Dr. R arguing on the way of walking. Both are different approaches or different aspects of one evidence. Only A is focusing on both of these while B/C/D/E are either focusing on just one aspect or irrelevant info. 2. Dr. T is arguing on the structure of foot print, which leads to hominids. If it is shown that the structure is similar to more than one category then we can weaken Dr. T's argument. A does that. noboru wrote: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe. However, since the footprints indicate that if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot. Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson’s conclusion.
The disagreement between the two paleontologists is over which one of the following? (A) the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence (B) the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints (C) the possibility of using the evidence of footprints to determine the gait of the creature that made those footprints (D) the assumption that evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion (E) the likelihood that early hominids would have walked upright on two feet
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion? (A) The foot prints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least two distinct individuals. (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. (C) Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G, and the two sets of footprints are contemporaneous. (D) When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some of the footprints were erased. (E) Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals with hooves.
_________________
Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1635
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 25
Kudos [?]:
119
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
16 May 2010, 15:01
For the first one OA is A, for the second one, lets discuss a bit more.
_________________
The sky is the limit 800 is the limit
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
16 May 2010, 15:50
1) A 2)B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 251
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 16
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
17 May 2010, 07:45
Is it A for the first one? I went for B.
B, because two big toes could still be adjacent to each other if they belonged to two bears standing next to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 79
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
19 May 2010, 11:31
I went for 'A' for first one. why 'A' is not correct?? wats justification for 'B'?
On 2nd I choose 'A'. I rejected 'B' coz it states some bear's foot are similar to humans but doesnt say they were actually seen near volcanic footprints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 959
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
555
[0], given: 40
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
22 May 2010, 01:39
For (2), B says: (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. So, there are some difference b/w hominids' and bears' footprints and these can differentiate easily. So, I think B strengthens DR. T case rather than weakens. Noboru, can we have the OA?
_________________
Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1570
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
121
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
24 May 2010, 11:56
I went for B and B.
After reading thru the explanation realized it should A for the first one.
but I still think it should be B for the second one.
What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 102
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
28 May 2010, 22:50
For the second one, my take is B. What is OA please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2010
Posts: 2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
08 Oct 2010, 06:38
I think for the second one the OA is A and not B because, If the toe for the bear is on the outside then the two toes would not be adjacent to one another. On the other hand if the prints belonged to two different individuals then the premise used by dr tyson could be negated. What do you'll think?
and i think its high time someone posted the OA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 229
Location: Boston
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
50
[7] , given: 5
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
08 Oct 2010, 07:49
7
This post received KUDOS
Going with A for the first one and B for the second one. noboru wrote: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe. However, since the footprints indicate that if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot. Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson’s conclusion.
The disagreement between the two paleontologists is over which one of the following?
Dr. Tyson thinks that the evidence shows the footprints belong to early hominids due to the shape of the footprints, while Dr. Rees believes they can't belong to early hominids because of the walking pattern. Sounds like they're disagreeing over interpretations of different aspects of the evidence.
(A) the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence Bingo (B) the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints Clearly they agree with that, or this disagreement wouldn't happen to begin with (C) the possibility of using the evidence of footprints to determine the gait of the creature that made those footprints The gait has been determined and is the evidence that Dr. Rees is using, so this is not a point of dissention (D) the assumption that evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion They're both drawing conclusions, neither one is arguing that no conclusion can be drawn (E) the likelihood that early hominids would have walked upright on two feet Dr. Rees didn't say anything about this possibility
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion?
(A) The foot prints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least two distinct individuals. This would strengthen Dr. Tyson's conclusion by weakening Dr. Rees's, because it would open the possibility of the strange pattern of footprints being caused by two people walking in a particular fashion, causing the overlap of footprints (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. This would explain the "cross-stepping pattern" - because the bear's feet look the same as a human's, except they're essentially reversed. So the footprint from the left foot would look like the right foot, and vice versa. This strengthen's Dr. Rees's position, by giving a reason to believe the footprints might belong to the bear, and thereby weakens Dr. Tyson's conclusion. (C) Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G, and the two sets of footprints are contemporaneous. Strengthen's Dr. Tyson's argument by showing that the cross-stepping pattern might be an anomaly (D) When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some of the footprints were erased. I originally answered this by POE until I started typing this post and realized that B is a much better answer. This doesn't really affect either argument, since both conclusions are being made from the same set of prints. (E) Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals with hooves. Totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2010
Posts: 2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
08 Oct 2010, 09:15
TehJay wrote: Going with A for the first one and B for the second one. noboru wrote: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe. However, since the footprints indicate that if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot. Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson’s conclusion.
The disagreement between the two paleontologists is over which one of the following?
Dr. Tyson thinks that the evidence shows the footprints belong to early hominids due to the shape of the footprints, while Dr. Rees believes they can't belong to early hominids because of the walking pattern. Sounds like they're disagreeing over interpretations of different aspects of the evidence.
(A) the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence Bingo (B) the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints Clearly they agree with that, or this disagreement wouldn't happen to begin with (C) the possibility of using the evidence of footprints to determine the gait of the creature that made those footprints The gait has been determined and is the evidence that Dr. Rees is using, so this is not a point of dissention (D) the assumption that evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion They're both drawing conclusions, neither one is arguing that no conclusion can be drawn (E) the likelihood that early hominids would have walked upright on two feet Dr. Rees didn't say anything about this possibility
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion?
(A) The foot prints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least two distinct individuals. This would strengthen Dr. Tyson's conclusion by weakening Dr. Rees's, because it would open the possibility of the strange pattern of footprints being caused by two people walking in a particular fashion, causing the overlap of footprints (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. This would explain the "cross-stepping pattern" - because the bear's feet look the same as a human's, except they're essentially reversed. So the footprint from the left foot would look like the right foot, and vice versa. This strengthen's Dr. Rees's position, by giving a reason to believe the footprints might belong to the bear, and thereby weakens Dr. Tyson's conclusion. (C) Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G, and the two sets of footprints are contemporaneous. Strengthen's Dr. Tyson's argument by showing that the cross-stepping pattern might be an anomaly (D) When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some of the footprints were erased. I originally answered this by POE until I started typing this post and realized that B is a much better answer. This doesn't really affect either argument, since both conclusions are being made from the same set of prints. (E) Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals with hooves. Totally irrelevant. Thank you for putting me out of my misery. It is an excellent explanation :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: Veritas Prep
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 13
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
7
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
08 Oct 2010, 09:53
1
This post received KUDOS
This explanation is very clear and thorough! I would just add one thing for those trying to decide between answers A) and B) on the second question. It's important to keep track of what conclusion the scientists are arguing over: whether or not the tracks are evidence of humans. Answer A) in the second question does not call that conclusion into question. It just says that there might be some disagreement about HOW MANY humans there are, without questioning the conclusion that humans were present.
_________________
Mimi
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting For a limited time, receive access to five Veritas Prep Computer Adaptive practice tests when you purchase a Veritas Prep GMAT book! Buy Now! Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 35
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
08 Oct 2010, 14:15
1. A 2. B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
67
[0], given: 149
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
12 Jan 2011, 06:59
I still dont get how the answer to the question can be A . Can someone explain. I understand that Tyson is trying to find to whom do the footprintsin quest belong and Rees is not trying to find anything.He just rejects Tysons claims because he thinks a hominid couldnt have made those proints.
_________________
My Post Invites Discussions not answers Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now ! Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
58
[0], given: 51
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
25 Apr 2011, 11:14
1.A 2.B i think this was a bit challenging but managed to handle it right
_________________
What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: ==GMAT Ninja==
Joined: 08 Jan 2011
Posts: 251
Schools: ISB, IIMA ,SP Jain , XLRI
WE 1: Aditya Birla Group (sales)
WE 2: Saint Gobain Group (sales)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
39
[0], given: 46
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06
TehJay wrote: Going with A for the first one and B for the second one. noboru wrote: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe. However, since the footprints indicate that if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot. Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson’s conclusion.
The disagreement between the two paleontologists is over which one of the following?
Dr. Tyson thinks that the evidence shows the footprints belong to early hominids due to the shape of the footprints, while Dr. Rees believes they can't belong to early hominids because of the walking pattern. Sounds like they're disagreeing over interpretations of different aspects of the evidence.
(A) the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence Bingo (B) the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints Clearly they agree with that, or this disagreement wouldn't happen to begin with (C) the possibility of using the evidence of footprints to determine the gait of the creature that made those footprints The gait has been determined and is the evidence that Dr. Rees is using, so this is not a point of dissention (D) the assumption that evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion They're both drawing conclusions, neither one is arguing that no conclusion can be drawn (E) the likelihood that early hominids would have walked upright on two feet Dr. Rees didn't say anything about this possibility
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion?
(A) The foot prints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least two distinct individuals. This would strengthen Dr. Tyson's conclusion by weakening Dr. Rees's, because it would open the possibility of the strange pattern of footprints being caused by two people walking in a particular fashion, causing the overlap of footprints (B) Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe. This would explain the "cross-stepping pattern" - because the bear's feet look the same as a human's, except they're essentially reversed. So the footprint from the left foot would look like the right foot, and vice versa. This strengthen's Dr. Rees's position, by giving a reason to believe the footprints might belong to the bear, and thereby weakens Dr. Tyson's conclusion. (C) Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G, and the two sets of footprints are contemporaneous. Strengthen's Dr. Tyson's argument by showing that the cross-stepping pattern might be an anomaly (D) When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some of the footprints were erased. I originally answered this by POE until I started typing this post and realized that B is a much better answer. This doesn't really affect either argument, since both conclusions are being made from the same set of prints. (E) Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals with hooves. Totally irrelevant. Lovely Explanation ...
_________________
WarLocK _____________________________________________________________________________ The War is oNNNNNNNNNNNNN for 720+ see my Test exp here http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-test-experience-111610.html do not hesitate me giving kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 20
|
Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]
12 Jan 2012, 09:49
mundasingh123 wrote: I still dont get how the answer to the question can be A . Can someone explain. I understand that Tyson is trying to find to whom do the footprintsin quest belong and Rees is not trying to find anything.He just rejects Tysons claims because he thinks a hominid couldnt have made those proints. One Dr., by going with the size of the foot print, interprets the data in one way and the other going by the arrangement interprets the data in another way (though the second interpretation contradicts the first one, its a different story) So, the data is significant.
_________________
------------------------- -Aravind Chembeti
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Enjoying the GMAT journey....
Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Posts: 729
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V24
Followers: 45
Kudos [?]:
206
[0], given: 261
|
Re: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over [#permalink]
12 Jan 2012, 11:37
1-A 2-B
_________________
Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
A WAY TO INCREASE FROM QUANT 35-40 TO 47 : a-way-to-increase-from-q35-40-to-q-138750.html
Q 47/48 To Q 50 + the-final-climb-quest-for-q-50-from-q47-129441.html#p1064367
Three good RC strategies three-different-strategies-for-attacking-rc-127287.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over
[#permalink]
12 Jan 2012, 11:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar Topics:
|
|
|
|
Questions 7-8 Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees,
|
WinWinMBA |
1 |
10 May 2005, 16:08 |
|
|
|
Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over
|
rahuluec |
7 |
15 Oct 2005, 07:25 |
|
|
|
Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over
|
rahuluec |
6 |
15 Oct 2005, 07:26 |
|
|
|
Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over
|
hibloom |
6 |
04 Sep 2008, 12:58 |
|
2
|
|
For over thirty years, Dr. Jane Goodall has conducted field
|
Ekin4112 |
6 |
16 Mar 2010, 18:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|