Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 14:27 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 14:27

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:
Kudos
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 318
Own Kudos [?]: 19707 [140]
Given Kudos: 50
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Jan 2020
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 1731 [23]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Send PM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 318
Own Kudos [?]: 19707 [15]
Given Kudos: 50
Send PM
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [14]
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
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
12
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
saby1410 wrote:
GMATNinja

Please help to understand option C&E didn't get why option C is wrong or Why option E is better than C

Posted from my mobile device

First, let’s consider the structure of the passage:

  • Scientists conclude that the sea-level rise 25 million years ago left part of Marlandia unsubmerged.
  • This is because a fossil proves that present-day Marlandian reptiles descend from ancient species that lived on the island millions of years ago.
  • Previously, the ancestral species was thought to have gone extinct during the sea-level rise.

But the scientists seem to have made a jump in their reasoning. Just because the species continued after the sea-level rise does not necessarily mean that part of Marlandia was unsubmerged. What if the ancient species survived the sea-level rise in another way?

The question asks that we find an answer choice that provides the most support for the scientists’ conclusion. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the answer choices.

Quote:
A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

(A) gives us information about what has happened since the sea-level rise, but we’re concerned with what happened during the sea-level rise. Moreover, it merely gives us information on reptiles in general, and we don’t know whether it applies to this particular species. Eliminate (A).

Quote:
B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

If Marlandia previously separated from a larger landmass, we may have some reason to believe that the ancient species was originally found on that landmass. But the fact that Marlandia separated from a larger landmass 80 million years ago gives us no reason to believe that Marlandia was left unsubmerged 25 million years ago. Eliminate (B).

Quote:
C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

(C) tells us that the only proof of a relationship between the ancient and present-day species has been found in Marlandia. This may make us think that the relationship between the two species is unique to the island. But we don’t actually know that for sure. All we know is that our existing proof only supports the relationship on Marlandia. And it still does not provide support for the idea that part of Marlandia was left unsubmerged. Eliminate (C).

Quote:
D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

The problem with (D) is that we don’t know whether the present-day reptiles are able to thrive on other islands as well. If they were only able to thrive on the tiny islands, then maybe we would have reason to believe that those islands were left unsubmerged. But we don’t actually know that, and it’s possible that the reptiles are able to thrive in many places. So, we can eliminate (D).

Quote:
E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.

(E) is interesting. If the ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea, then we have reason to believe that the reptiles would not have survived if the entirety of the Marlandia islands were submerged. Because the reptiles did survive, (E) makes us think that at least part of Marlandia was unsubmerged. Therefore, (E) supports the scientists’ conclusion, and it is the best answer choice.
General Discussion
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Posts: 631
Own Kudos [?]: 1444 [3]
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
WE:Sales (Other)
Send PM
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

If the ancestral reptiles can adapt, then they probably made it through the sea level rise. Weakens

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

Irrelevant since the sea level rise is thought to have happened only 25 million years ago

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

Irrelevant

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

Irrelevant

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.

If the ancestral reptiles could not have survived at sea and they have present day descendants, the ancestral reptiles probably didn't have to survive at sea. This should mean that some part of Marlandia wasn't submerged. Strengthens

Answer is (E)
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [3]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
gmatt1476 wrote:
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.


CR02531.01


A fossil has been found in Marlandia, an island.
It shows that an indigenous present day reptile descended from an ancient reptile that lived here (so perhaps the fossil has unique features of both).
This is surprising because the ancient reptile was though to have become extinct 25 million yrs ago when Marlandia got submerged.

Conclusion - Some parts were not submerged.

We need to strengthen this.

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

Doesn't say anything about whether all of Marlandia could have been submerged or not.

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

Irrelevant how Marlandia came into being.

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

No fossils have been found elsewhere does not mean they don't exist elsewhere. We are not given that the ancient reptiles lives only on Marlandia. Perhaps the fossil reptiles came to Marlandia and then the present day reptiles descended from them. Though to a small degree, it does increase the probability that some parts of Marlandia were not submerged but finding fossils is such a rare occurrence that not finding elsewhere has little meaning. Let's hold this.

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

Irrelevant.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.

This does help to strengthen that some parts of Marlandia were not submerged. If the ancient reptile could not have survived long at sea, it could not have stayed in the sea and then come back to Marlandia when it rose up again. This also means the ancient reptile could not have swum somewhere else and then come back to Marlandia once it rose again. Hence, it does become more likely that some land of Marlandia must not have been submerged.


Also, now looking at option (C) again (while ignoring option (E)), we know that it doesn't strengthen the conclusion. The ancient reptile could have swum to other land and returned to Marlandia once it rose again. So not finding fossils elsewhere doesn't help us.

Answer (E)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 May 2018
Posts: 98
Own Kudos [?]: 74 [2]
Given Kudos: 75
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
2
Kudos
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.

Conclusion - Some part of Marlandia was unsubmerged when the sea-level rose.
In all the answer choices, we have to find the strengthener of this statement.


Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise. - Doesnt say anything about conclusion.

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago. We are talking about 25 million years old issue here

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia. - No talk about conclusion

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands. - I initially marked this as it proves that the reptiles can survive even on tiny islands. so, take it as a contender

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea. - This shows that reptiles would have to survive at land as it cant survive in sea for sure. So, this definitely proves our conclusion.

Out of D and E, E is a better choice.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 166
Own Kudos [?]: 289 [1]
Given Kudos: 222
GPA: 3
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Option C is a weak attempt to rule out an alternate explanation. The info is inconclusive! Suggests that the species could have not existed elsewhere during the time of the flood solely because no fossils were found yet. One can safely see how this isn't convincing. Close, but out for the doubts that could question its validity such as - What if in the future fossils are found?
Option E is straightforward. It says that the species would never have survived the sea-level rise. An evolution wouldn't have been possible with such a threat. Hence, there must have been some land on the island that wasn't affected by the sea-level rise.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2017
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 184 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
WE:General Management (Consulting)
Send PM
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
Quote:
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.


Quote:
Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?


Quote:
A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.
Adaptability – irrelevant

Quote:
B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.
We are not interested in what was done 80m y ago – only about THAT sea level rise…

Quote:
C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.
its narrowing the location where species can be found, but nothing about parts submerged

Quote:
D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.
Irrelevant

Quote:
E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.
If sea risen – reptiles submerged died – only unsubmerged species survived – it is
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Dec 2019
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
I would like to ask choice (E). What if the "unsubmerged part of Marlandia" is the separate part of another big land and the ancestral reptiles live just in that small part of the big land? Because if the above is true, then there is no need for the ancestral reptiles to be able to survive long at sea. In fact, they lived on the land and were "shipped" to where the land now is with the land movement.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 77
Own Kudos [?]: 98 [0]
Given Kudos: 84
Location: United States
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
j698105 wrote:
I would like to ask choice (E). What if the "unsubmerged part of Marlandia" is the separate part of another big land and the ancestral reptiles live just in that small part of the big land? Because if the above is true, then there is no need for the ancestral reptiles to be able to survive long at sea. In fact, they lived on the land and were "shipped" to where the land now is with the land movement.


"Unsubmerged part of Marlandia" is the separate part of another big land - If we assume than it would be ""Unsubmerged part of big land" not of Marlandia islands.

Need to keep our assumptions limited to given stem and information.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Dec 2019
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
lostin wrote:
j698105 wrote:
I would like to ask choice (E). What if the "unsubmerged part of Marlandia" is the separate part of another big land and the ancestral reptiles live just in that small part of the big land? Because if the above is true, then there is no need for the ancestral reptiles to be able to survive long at sea. In fact, they lived on the land and were "shipped" to where the land now is with the land movement.


"Unsubmerged part of Marlandia" is the separate part of another big land - If we assume than it would be ""Unsubmerged part of big land" not of Marlandia islands.

Need to keep our assumptions limited to given stem and information.


Thanks, I think I got the point. The question mentioned only Marlandia island, but I overextended the object being discussed, mistakenly "merged" other island into Marlandia.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 58 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V33
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
GMATNinja
Can you please help with this?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2020
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [0]
Given Kudos: 146
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Send PM
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
gmatt1476 wrote:
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.


CR02531.01

Earlier Belief: Marlandia was completely submerged millions of years ago.
New Discovery:Fossils of an ancestor of an indigenous to Marlandia.
Conclusion:Marlandia was not completely submerged.
Gap:How does discovery of the fossils of the ancestor relate to the island not being submerged.
Assumption:Reptiles(ancestor) could not have survived on the submerged island.
Now the questions asks us to find a choice that strengthens the conclusion. So if we find find something that fills the gap or supports the conclusion, then we are done.
Now coming to the options:
A)If they have adapted then maybe they also survived on the submerged island. Weakens
B)No relation to the argument.Irrelevant
C)Even if fossils were found, that isn't related to submersion.
D)Current reptiles can thrive on small lands and maybe the ancestor also needed land or maybe not(no proof),this option doesn't strengthen the conclusion.Neutral
E)This option perfectly fills the gap. They could not have survived, so this increases the probability that there must have been some unsubmerged part. Correct
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 29
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
gmatt1476 wrote:
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.


CR02531.01


Hi Experts,

please help in understanding the argument and why is option E correct

GmatNinja VeritasKarishma

Thank you
School Moderator - INSEAD Masters
Joined: 07 Jan 2020
Posts: 510
Own Kudos [?]: 265 [0]
Given Kudos: 193
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Accounting)
Send PM
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
Manisha_1991 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise.

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago.

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.


CR02531.01


Hi Experts,

please help in understanding the argument and why is option E correct

GmatNinja VeritasKarishma

Thank you


Manisha_1991 you gotta tag them so they can see .

GMATNinja

VeritasKarishma
UNC Kenan Flagler Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 247 [0]
Given Kudos: 120
GMAT 1: 530 Q43 V20
WE:Analyst (Consumer Products)
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
gmatt1476 wrote:
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves that a present-day reptile indigenous to Marlandia is descended from an ancient reptile species that lived on the islands millions of years ago. The finding is surprising since the ancestral species was thought to have become extinct when Marlandia was submerged in a global sea-level rise twenty-five million years ago. Based on the new discovery, many scientists have concluded that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the most additional support for the scientists' conclusion?
CR02531.01

We need to keep a couple of points in mind before eliminating the answer choices:
1. The present day species is indigenous to Marlandia
2. It has been proved without any doubt that the present day species is a descended from the ancient species (evidence is the fossil record)
3. The event happened 25 million years ago

A. Reptiles in Marlandia have adapted to many environmental changes since the sea-level rise - Incorrect
1. This option does not tell us what those environmental changes are
2. Also, it does not help us conclude whether a small piece of Malandia was left unsubmerged after the rise in sea level 25 million years ago

B. Marlandia separated from a much larger landmass about eighty million years ago - Incorrect
The event in question happened 25 million years ago, hence what happened 80 million years ago is irrelevant

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia - Incorrect
This one goes against the evidence in point #1 and #2 from the list mentioned at the start of this explanation

D. The present-day reptiles are able to thrive on very tiny Marlandia islands - Incorrect
This tells us that present-day reptiles have adapted to present day conditions, but this option does not tell us whether a small piece of Malandia was left unsubmerged after the rise in sea level 25 million years ago

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea - Correct
1. In point #2 we have non debatable evidence that the present day reptiles have descended from the ancient reptile species
2. Negating this option tells us that if there was no land then these species would have gone extinct and hence there would have been no descendants
3. Negating breaks down the argument

Ans. E
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 99
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
What
that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.
Why
- ancestral species thought to have become extinct when island was submerged.
If the ancestral species became extinct, they should have no future generations.
- But species did not become extinct as the fossil links ancestral reptiles to current reptiles (future generations)

Thought process
Discovery Indicates 2 things one is it links the current reptiles to ancestorial ones and implicitly means that ancestry was not extinct at the time the island submerged.

So since the ancestry survived (this inference is essential to make) at least part of the Marlandia unsubmerged.
Gap: Assumption. Ancestry could not survive at sea.
If ancestry survived sea, conclusion breaks else conclusion holds.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.
As per our thought process

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.
Just for knowledge one can infer - No fossils have been found doesn’t mean they do not exist.

But the reasoning is not about the fossils, it is the ancestry surviving sea or not.

C implies fossils that prove… have not been found elsewhere. Only found in Marlandia.
This Marlandia could have been completely submerged or unsubmerged.
The creature could have survived both cases (We know the ancestry surely survived. It is proved “the fossils prove” )
In short the choice doesn’t tell us that ancestry was allergic to sea and no sea was essential to their survival.
Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2016
Status:On the journey of achieving
Affiliations: Senior Manager, CA by profession, CFA(USA) Level 2
Posts: 254
Own Kudos [?]: 167 [0]
Given Kudos: 148
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GMAT 1: 560 Q44 V23
GMAT 2: 530 Q39 V24
GMAT 3: 580 Q46 V24 (Online)
GMAT 4: 640 Q50 V26
GPA: 3.82
WE:Other (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Re: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
kagrawal16 wrote:
What
that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.
Why
- ancestral species thought to have become extinct when island was submerged.
If the ancestral species became extinct, they should have no future generations.
- But species did not become extinct as the fossil links ancestral reptiles to current reptiles (future generations)

Thought process
Discovery Indicates 2 things one is it links the current reptiles to ancestorial ones and implicitly means that ancestry was not extinct at the time the island submerged.

So since the ancestry survived (this inference is essential to make) at least part of the Marlandia unsubmerged.
Gap: Assumption. Ancestry could not survive at sea.
If ancestry survived sea, conclusion breaks else conclusion holds.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.
As per our thought process

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.
Just for knowledge one can infer - No fossils have been found doesn’t mean they do not exist.

But the reasoning is not about the fossils, it is the ancestry surviving sea or not.

C implies fossils that prove… have not been found elsewhere. Only found in Marlandia.
This Marlandia could have been completely submerged or unsubmerged.
The creature could have survived both cases (We know the ancestry surely survived. It is proved “the fossils prove” )
In short the choice doesn’t tell us that ancestry was allergic to sea and no sea was essential to their survival.



You are confusing the things, please read Karishma Mam's explanation for clarity
Conclusion is that some portion of Islands are unsubmerged as per the discovery
Option E indicates that ancient reptiles could not survive long at sea, so ancient reptiles could become extinct if it were on sea as it cannot swim, neither it can escape from sea and reach Marladia Islands. So it gives us a possibility that a portion of Island was unsubmerged and ancient reptiles were able to survive and present day reptiles descended from them

Option C is incorrect as no fossils were found does not means that fossils do not exist elsewhere. May be some fossils exist at some other place and ancestral reptiles existed in past at those other places
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 99
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
Send PM
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#permalink]
Subject: A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves

vasuca10 wrote:
kagrawal16 wrote:
What
that the sea-level rise in question left at least part of Marlandia unsubmerged.
Why
- ancestral species thought to have become extinct when island was submerged.
If the ancestral species became extinct, they should have no future generations.
- But species did not become extinct as the fossil links ancestral reptiles to current reptiles (future generations)

Thought process
Discovery Indicates 2 things one is it links the current reptiles to ancestorial ones and implicitly means that ancestry was not extinct at the time the island submerged.

So since the ancestry survived (this inference is essential to make) at least part of the Marlandia unsubmerged.
Gap: Assumption. Ancestry could not survive at sea.
If ancestry survived sea, conclusion breaks else conclusion holds.

E. The ancestral reptiles could not have survived long at sea.
As per our thought process

C. No fossils that prove the relationship between the present-day species and the ancestral species have been found anywhere other than Marlandia.
Just for knowledge one can infer - No fossils have been found doesn’t mean they do not exist.

But the reasoning is not about the fossils, it is the ancestry surviving sea or not.

C implies fossils that prove… have not been found elsewhere. Only found in Marlandia.
This Marlandia could have been completely submerged or unsubmerged.
The creature could have survived both cases (We know the ancestry surely survived. It is proved “the fossils prove” )
In short the choice doesn’t tell us that ancestry was allergic to sea and no sea was essential to their survival.



You are confusing the things, please read Karishma Mam's explanation for clarity
Conclusion is that some portion of Islands are unsubmerged as per the discovery
Option E indicates that ancient reptiles could not survive long at sea, so ancient reptiles could become extinct if it were on sea as it cannot swim, neither it can escape from sea and reach Marladia Islands. So it gives us a possibility that a portion of Island was unsubmerged and ancient reptiles were able to survive and present day reptiles descended from them

Option C is incorrect as no fossils were found does not means that fossils do not exist elsewhere. May be some fossils exist at some other place and ancestral reptiles existed in past at those other places



Hey yes I did not specifically mention but i am against option C too.
I basically mean what can be inferred or what choice C means.
Correct answer is SURELY E.

What my post pertains to is the relevance of the fossils.

Premises say

Earlier
The ancestry was supposed to be extinct. Implies that the current day reptiles had unknown ancestry till the finding.

After finding fossils
The fossil found links the ancestry to the current day reptiles. This is surprising because the ancestry was thought to be extinct in the submerging, but post this finding the ancestry is established.

"It also establishes that the ancestry was present at the time of submergence AND survived it because thats how the current day reptiles came in to existence."
My earlier post is all about the above statement.

Conclusion
Therefore at least part of the island was not submerged.

Can it really be drawn that at least part of the island was not submerged.
What if the specimen in fossil could survive at sea.

I am in complete agreement with Karishma mam. Her explanation is always flawless. I just didn't mention the correct answer explicitly.

This explanation is my opinion. Thanks
GMAT Club Bot
A fossil recently discovered in Marlandia, a chain of islands, proves [#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