Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 16 Jul 2019, 11:36

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

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 164
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
WE: Engineering (Other)
According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2018, 21:45
TIME: 7 minutes

1. Excerpt from the passage: Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene
This means Martin proposed that climate change was not a factor in the extinction that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene.
Hence B
2. Excerpt from the passage: White observes that Martin's thesis depends on coinciding dates for the arrival of humans and the decline of large animal species, and Krech, though aware that the dates are controversial, does not challenge them
The last line of the passage provides additional support to white's theory that arrival humans had no role in the extinction. If the recent discoveries are true then humans had arrived much earlier than the time frame accepted by Martin and Krech. Therefore, we can infer that it is unlikely that humans had contributed to the extinction as envisioned by the researchers.
Hence E
3. Excerpt from the passage: Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption
Option B weakens the above statement. If option B is correct then we could assume that humans indeed played a far greater role than what Krech thought, and hence weakens krech opposition to martin theory.
option B is the correct answer.
4. A ( straight and obvious)
Krech already states in the passage that " asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene"

5. Excerpt from the passage: Anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption
Thus the statements above support the Krech theory that humans didn't play a primary role in the extinction, but rather a secondary role.
Hence D
_________________
If you feel the post helped you then do send me the kudos (damn theya re more valuable than $)
UBC Sauder Thread Master
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Apr 2018
Posts: 13
Location: Canada
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 580 Q39 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q43 V35
GPA: 3.33
WE: Account Management (Advertising and PR)
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2018, 07:40
For 1), are we supposed to take Martin's exclusion of climate change in his theories as "denial"? It seems a little problematic.

Seems possible that Martin's exclusion of climate change may just be a situation where he thinks it isn't the most important factor (so he didn't see any reason to include it in his theory), rather than a flat out denial of climate change's impact on the extinction of Pleistocene species. And you can't categorically say that exclusion = denial.

It's like saying a zoologist who doesn't include climate change in their theory as to why the dodo bird went extinct DENIES the impact climate change (may) have had on our feathered friend's extinction.
SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2018, 21:23
P1- 2 theory on why extinction - one says hunting, other says something else (with evidence)
P2- 2 is contradicts 1; 3rd theory on archaeological discoveries contradicts facts from both theories.

Main point - Author is contradicting 2 theories with a 3rd one. evidences are given for that.
Tone - Modrate

Q1: Which of the following is true about Martin’s theory, as that theory is described in the passage?
What to do - First POE; look for answer in 1st para;
(A) It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival. - No
(B) It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change. - because theory is depends upon given situation all other factors should be removed. Also all other choices can't be the answer.
(C) It uses as evidence the fact that humans have produced local extinctions in other situations. - No that is theory 2
(D) It attempts to address the controversy over the date of human arrival in North America. - theory 3
(E) It admits the possibility that factors other than the arrival of humans played a role in the Pleistocene extinctions. - theory2

----------------------------------------------------------

Q2: In the last sentence of the passage, the author refers to “recent archaeological discoveries” (lines 36-37) most probably in order to
(E) provide support for White’s questioning of both Martin’s and Krech’s positions regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions - White is challenging both on Paleoindians ground, As both have given Paleoindians in their theories.

----------------------------------------------------------

Q3: Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?
objection is "animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them".
pre-think - Two things can have different effects at same time extinction.

(B) New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct - best of the lot.
----------------------------------------------------------

Q4: The passage suggests that Krech would be most likely to agree with a theory of the Pleistocene species extinctions that
(A) included climate change as one of the causes of the extinctions - straight Ans
(B) incorporated a revised date for human arrival in North America - No
(C) eliminated the Paleoindians as a factor in the extinctions - not eliminated
(D) identified a single cause for the extinctions - No
(E) emphasized the role of hunting in causing most species extinctions - No

-----------------------------------------------------------

5. The passage mentions the extinction of species other than large animals (see highlighted text)[Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared] most probably in order to

(A) suggest that the Paleoindians were responsible for more extinctions than Martin's theory assumes - No
(B) provide support for the speculation that humans arrived in North America significantly earlier than the end of the Pleistocene era - No
(C) point out the only area in which Martin, Krech, and White agree concerning the circumstances of the Pleistocene extinctions - No
(D) cite additional evidence tending to support Krech's conclusions about the role of humans in the Pleistocene extinctions - Correct
(E) raise a question about the logical consistency of Krech's view of Martin's theory - No; opposite
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2351
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2018, 08:14
aquaria wrote:
For 1), are we supposed to take Martin's exclusion of climate change in his theories as "denial"? It seems a little problematic.

Seems possible that Martin's exclusion of climate change may just be a situation where he thinks it isn't the most important factor (so he didn't see any reason to include it in his theory), rather than a flat out denial of climate change's impact on the extinction of Pleistocene species. And you can't categorically say that exclusion = denial.

It's like saying a zoologist who doesn't include climate change in their theory as to why the dodo bird went extinct DENIES the impact climate change (may) have had on our feathered friend's extinction.


Even I had views similar to those of aquaria as quoted above and ended up choosing A, though the word 'primarily' in A is a little strong.

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans. However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. - From the bolded part, can't we infer that Paleoindians hunted large animals at least in a few areas and that this idea is a part of Martin's theory ?

Q1: Which of the following is true about Martin’s theory, as that theory is described in the passage?

(A) It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival. - I agree that primarily is a little strong here.
(B) It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change. - As per Martin, the wave of species extinctions can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans, but this fact DOES NOT mean that there were no other causes.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasKarishma , DmitryFarber ,ChiranjeevSingh ,RonPurewal , workout , other experts -please enlighten
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Private GMAT Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 139
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2018, 20:30
1
Top Contributor
Skywalker18 wrote:
aquaria wrote:
For 1), are we supposed to take Martin's exclusion of climate change in his theories as "denial"? It seems a little problematic.

Seems possible that Martin's exclusion of climate change may just be a situation where he thinks it isn't the most important factor (so he didn't see any reason to include it in his theory), rather than a flat out denial of climate change's impact on the extinction of Pleistocene species. And you can't categorically say that exclusion = denial.

It's like saying a zoologist who doesn't include climate change in their theory as to why the dodo bird went extinct DENIES the impact climate change (may) have had on our feathered friend's extinction.


Even I had views similar to those of aquaria as quoted above and ended up choosing A, though the word 'primarily' in A is a little strong.

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans. However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. - From the bolded part, can't we infer that Paleoindians hunted large animals at least in a few areas and that this idea is a part of Martin's theory ?

Q1: Which of the following is true about Martin’s theory, as that theory is described in the passage?

(A) It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival. - I agree that primarily is a little strong here.
(B) It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change. - As per Martin, the wave of species extinctions can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans, but this fact DOES NOT mean that there were no other causes.



Hello,

As usually the case, when you select an incorrect option, you have committed at least two errors in reasoning: your reasoning for rejecting the correct option and your reasoning for selecting the incorrect option both are wrong. So is the case here.

Skywalker18 wrote:
From the bolded part, can't we infer that Paleoindians hunted large animals at least in a few areas and that this idea is a part of Martin's theory?
No, we cannot infer this. The bolded part is pointed out by Krech. We don't even know whether Martin knew about or considered human hunting. (If you think that since Martin is attributing species extinctions to the arrivals of humans, he must be considering human hunting, I'll not agree with you. Species extinctions may not be a result of human hunting; extinctions may be a result of humans' playing with or destroying the nature, as is the case currently). Besides, if you ask me whether we can consider the bolded part a part of Krech's theory, I'll NOT say 'yes'. Why? Because Krech is just pointing out a fact. This is not his theory. However, frankly, it'll be difficult to reject it completely because Krech's theory might be based on this fact. But can you say that the facts on which your theory is based are part of your theory? I don't think so.

Aquaria's reasoning is incorrect because of the way he interprets 'exclusion' as used in the passage. If you think 'exclusion' just means that Martin did not study or consider climate change, the statement 'Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion' wouldn't make any sense. How can you contradict the fact that someone did not study factor X? (Well, you can. However, that will lead to a very different meaning) You can, however, contradict the fact that X was not a factor in Y. Also, the statement "I am excluding climate change as an explanation for extinctions" does mean that I don't think climate change was the cause for extinctions. However, if I say that 'I am excluding climate change from my study", then it means that I'm not considering 'climate change' in my study. However, in this case, somebody contradicting my exclusion wouldn't make sense.
_________________
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 434
Schools: Dartmouth College
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2018, 18:15
Skywalker18 wrote:
(B) It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change. - As per Martin, the wave of species extinctions can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans, but this fact DOES NOT mean that there were no other causes.



to exclude a theory = to RULE OUT that theory.
From the passage:
Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation.
In other words:
Martin RULES OUT CLIMATE CHANGE as an explanation for the wave of species extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene era.
Thus, option B is a valid inference:
Martin's theory denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change.


_________________
GMAT and GRE Tutor
Over 1800 followers
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
New York, NY
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 172
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
CAT Tests
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2019, 03:00
Can anyone please help me why option C is wrong for Q3?
Per my understanding, Krech makes two assertions:
I he refutes Martin's claim about human predation

II He makes a claim that climate can explain the extinction.

I had tough time choosing between option b and option c and lastly chose option c because I thought if the climate reason is not present, surely it weakens the claim of Krech to include another factor in the extinction.

Please help me where I am wrong in my reasoning.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 434
Schools: Dartmouth College
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2019, 03:59
rish2708 wrote:
Can anyone please help me why option C is wrong for Q3?
Per my understanding, Krech makes two assertions:
I he refutes Martin's claim about human predation

II He makes a claim that climate can explain the extinction.

I had tough time choosing between option b and option c and lastly chose option c because I thought if the climate reason is not present, surely it weakens the claim of Krech to include another factor in the extinction.

Please help me where I am wrong in my reasoning.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device


Author: X did indeed happen.
Here, the usage of indeed conveys the following:
Some people doubt that X actually happened.
The author believes that X did INDEED happen.

Passage:
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.
Here, the usage of indeed conveys the following:
Some people -- among them, most likely Martin -- doubt that widespread climactic change occurred at the end of the Pleistocene.
Krech believes that widespread climactic change did INDEED occur at the end of the Pleistocene.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?

Option C:
Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras.
This information SUPPORTS Krech's contention that climactic change did INDEED occur at the end of the Pleistocene and thus does NOT weaken his argument.
Eliminate C.
_________________
GMAT and GRE Tutor
Over 1800 followers
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
New York, NY
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Apr 2018
Posts: 37
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2019, 05:02
Hi,

For Question 3 I selected the choice C.

Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras


The reason for the same was that may be climate change was not responsible. There were such changes in the past and then extinctions did not occur. So probably factors other than climate change were responsible and this I thought is a better contradiction as compared to B.

Please let me know if my reasoning is correct. And why is B a better answer as compared to C.

Thank You
Sonal
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Posts: 154
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
WE: Brand Management (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2019, 08:28
Though the passage was not difficult to comprehend, however it took me 12 minutes to do all the questions including reading the passage!
In all Qs except Q no 4, I was stuck between 2 choices and wasted a lot of time to eliminate the wrong one. Wasn't able to eliminate some ans
choices quickly. I am still not able to comprehend why Answer choice for Q1 is not A.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2019, 08:36
origen87 wrote:
Kritesh wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry , daagh ,

Could you please explain me the answer choice for question 1 and question 3.

As per my understanding i selected the answer option A and D respectively.



1.
"Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene."
(A) It assumes that the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on hunting for survival. -Martin never says that, it's Krech who brings hunting issue on board
(B) It denies that the Pleistocene species extinctions were caused by climate change. -Martin excluded climate change as a factor.

3. Krech objects to Martin's theory by saying that it primarily cannot be humans because animals have been extinct in places where there was no hunting.
(B) New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct - Option B shows that indeed humans are the reason why the animals have become extinct.
(D) Researchers’ discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed -earlier data revealed that say 10 species went extinct, new research puts that number to 20. How does this weaken Krech's objection? This neither weakens nor strengthens.


anairamitch1804 I don't agree with option B for Question-3 because If Humans Indeed made use of Insects, animals and plants then it can not be inferred that they used at such scale which caused extinction. Instead option-E makes more sense because Krech has suggested than climate change occurred at the end of Pleistocene but if you move that date of Humans arrival and decline of species much before 11000 years then the time of climate change and time of ((human arrival and species decline)) doesn't overlap. so climate change in that case because irrelevant that's why I seriously doubt option-B
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Posts: 130
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jun 2019, 11:35
GMATGuruNY wrote:
rish2708 wrote:
Can anyone please help me why option C is wrong for Q3?
Per my understanding, Krech makes two assertions:
I he refutes Martin's claim about human predation

II He makes a claim that climate can explain the extinction.

I had tough time choosing between option b and option c and lastly chose option c because I thought if the climate reason is not present, surely it weakens the claim of Krech to include another factor in the extinction.

Please help me where I am wrong in my reasoning.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device


Author: X did indeed happen.
Here, the usage of indeed conveys the following:
Some people doubt that X actually happened.
The author believes that X did INDEED happen.

Passage:
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.
Here, the usage of indeed conveys the following:
Some people -- among them, most likely Martin -- doubt that widespread climactic change occurred at the end of the Pleistocene.
Krech believes that widespread climactic change did INDEED occur at the end of the Pleistocene.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech’s objections to Martin’s theory?

Option C:
Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras.
This information SUPPORTS Krech's contention that climactic change did INDEED occur at the end of the Pleistocene and thus does NOT weaken his argument.
Eliminate C.




I believe you can help me here
I do not understand why is C wrong
K did challenge two things about M
1. The animals killing by humans
2. The climate change not having happened in end of P-era

THEORY 1
B suggests that they used small animals and stuff, however the reason still exists, small insects and stuff could be of the smaller location and not inside the jungle, " because if they did, the premise might not be weakened but fallen"
C suggests climate not "just" having changed at the end of P-era, other times too

C seems to be stronger than B


THEORY 2
Also I can see that the Animal not hunted thing as a hypothesis B stands tall

However climate change "did indeed occur" is kind of an assertion and therefore an evidence, which is a fact, you "cannot" challenge the facts Making C the weaker option

B seems stronger than C

I thought of both of these theories, now it's the point of view that counts.
How do you say Theory 2 is better than Theory 1

Anyone who has an OE would indeed be praised with something
_________________
IF YOU LIKE MY METHODS, GIVE KUDOS AND SAY "LONG MAY HE REIGN"
GMAT Club Bot
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of   [#permalink] 18 Jun 2019, 11:35

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





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