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

 It is currently 27 Aug 2016, 08:14

### 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

# Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 884 [0], given: 2

Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 06:35
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (02:00) correct 67% (02:00) wrong based on 163 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 0

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 74

Kudos [?]: 1157 [0], given: 40

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 884 [0], given: 2

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 187
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 14

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2010, 15:50
1) A
2)B
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 250
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 16

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 78
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 1

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 74

Kudos [?]: 1157 [0], given: 40

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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?
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 496 [0], given: 6

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 99
Followers: 1

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

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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]

### Show Tags

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: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 159 [8] , given: 5

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 07:49
8
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]

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 9 [1] , given: 0

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 09:53
1
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.
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

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

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 14:15
1. A
2. B
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 499
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 149

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 !

Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 650
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 51

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Manager
Status: ==GMAT Ninja==
Joined: 08 Jan 2011
Posts: 247
Schools: ISB, IIMA ,SP Jain , XLRI
WE 1: Aditya Birla Group (sales)
WE 2: Saint Gobain Group (sales)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 46

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 140 [0], given: 20

Re: Tyson and Dr. Rees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 735
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V24
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 463 [0], given: 264

Re: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 : http://gmatclub.com/forum/a-way-to-increase-from-q35-40-to-q-138750.html

Q 47/48 To Q 50 + http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-final-climb-quest-for-q-50-from-q47-129441.html#p1064367

Three good RC strategies http://gmatclub.com/forum/three-different-strategies-for-attacking-rc-127287.html

Re: Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over   [#permalink] 12 Jan 2012, 11:37

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree 2 07 Apr 2015, 20:57
Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking 5 14 Sep 2008, 07:32
Two paleontologists, Dr Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over 6 04 Sep 2008, 12:58
Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking 10 16 Apr 2008, 11:57
1 Over the last century, paleontologists have used small 6 10 Jan 2008, 07:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by