Last visit was: 23 May 2024, 11:05 It is currently 23 May 2024, 11:05
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:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 344
Own Kudos [?]: 2312 [78]
Given Kudos: 6
 V25
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 50
Own Kudos [?]: 53 [8]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: United States (HI)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.56
Send PM
Director
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 510
Own Kudos [?]: 3392 [6]
Given Kudos: 877
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 149
Own Kudos [?]: 297 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: Kolkata
Concentration: Strategic Management
Schools:La Martiniere for Boys
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
Priyankur and Nitya,

Please explain your answers for 1.

I got A as answer because if that were not the case Shepard Krech would not have pointed out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demon-
strate that Paleoindians hunted them
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Jun 2012
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [3]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
3
Kudos
aditi1903 wrote:
For question 1 : I am confused between A and B. both are true. Please help.

The problematic words in choice A are "primarily" and "for survival". Yes, Martin's theory assumes that Paleoindians hunted animals, but that's all you can say. Was it their "primary" food "for survival" ? Perhaps and is reasonable..BUT NOT stated in the passage. Also, the correctness of Martin's theory doesn't depend on it.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Status:GMAT...one last time for good!!
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 63 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.5
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
KanakGarg wrote:
Can someone extend help for 5D , it seems the highlighted text talks about the climatic effect, and not the human consumption was a factor.


Hi KanakGarg

Krech counters Martin's claim by saying that large animals vanished in areas where there are no signs of human hunting. So this cannot be the primary cause.

"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.Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption."

Further the author adds that leave alone large animals, even plants and insects vanished, now this cannot be the result of human hunting. So for sure its not human hunting. (The author just supports Kerch by adding these lines)
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Status:GMAT...one last time for good!!
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 63 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.5
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2016
Posts: 167
Own Kudos [?]: 59 [1]
Given Kudos: 67
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V28
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.



Can you please elaborate on how the option B i.e.
(B) New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
shows that indeed humans are the reason why the animals have become extinct I mean the paleoindians could use them even if they become extinct by other means??
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 23 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
tae808 wrote:
For Q1,

The passages states that Martin "excluded" the climate change as an explanation.
In my opinion, this DOES NOT mean that he DENIED it.
Can someone please elaborate on this?

That was my thinking as well and hence, I chose A. Does "denies" mean "in denial of" here, means that it does not acknowledge the effect of climate change?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Mar 2018
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [5]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
5
Kudos
For Question 3, how is B correct.
Krech himself acknowledges that Paleoindians used to hunt small animals, plants and insects but also says that it is not the only reason for their extinction.
Option B says that Discoveries indicate that humans made use of species that went extinct. This fact is acknowledged by Krech. It may be possible that humans made use of them but they went extinct through some other reason. How does it weaken Krech's theory ?

Infact Option C weakens Krech's theory. Climatic change occurred before and after but species didn't become extinct. This indicates that climatic change is not a strong reason for species extinction during Pleistocene era. Hence it weakens Krech's idea. Although intensity of climatic change May different hence this option is also not completely correct.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 154
Own Kudos [?]: 451 [2]
Given Kudos: 489
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
WE:Engineering (Other)
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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
UBC Sauder Thread Master
Joined: 21 Apr 2018
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 175
Location: Canada
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 580 Q39 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q43 V35
GPA: 3.33
WE:Account Management (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
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.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1265
Own Kudos [?]: 5662 [2]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
2
Kudos
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
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2099
Own Kudos [?]: 8865 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
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
Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status:Private GMAT Tutor
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 2366 [5]
Given Kudos: 136
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT Focus 1:
735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 2:
735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
5
Kudos
Expert Reply
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.
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1321
Own Kudos [?]: 3162 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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.

Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 214 [0]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
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
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1321
Own Kudos [?]: 3162 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2018
Posts: 116
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [2]
Given Kudos: 336
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 560 Q43 V23
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
2
Kudos
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
Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Posts: 120
Own Kudos [?]: 298 [0]
Given Kudos: 41
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
WE:Brand Management (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Send PM
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of [#permalink]
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14034 posts