GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Oct 2018, 18:49

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 the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 07 Aug 2016
Posts: 83
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Reviews Badge
According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2017, 11:29
6
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (02:12) correct 49% (02:10) wrong based on 432 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit North America came across a land bridge between northeast Asia and Alaska approximately 12,000 years ago. But a group of archaeologists now theorizes that some humans arrived in Baja California approximately 13,500 years ago. This hypothesis must be false, however, because the oldest human fossil remains that have been found in North America are only 12,000 years old.

The argument above assumes that:

A. There will be no new archaeological discoveries in North America that disprove conventional theories.
B. The land bridge used by humans 12,000 years ago was not in existence 13,500 years ago.
C. There have not been discoveries of fossilized human tools from more than 13,000 years ago made in North America.
D. Archaeologists have an incentive to make up incorrect theories regarding early human migration.
E. Human beings did not have a way to reach North America prior to the formation of the land bridge known to have been used by people 12,000 years ago.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 27 Aug 2014
Posts: 56
Location: Canada
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GPA: 3.66
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2017, 17:51
1
Answer is C.

A. There will be no new archaeological discoveries in North America that disprove conventional theories. General statement, can't really say that is disproves our conclusion if negated
B. The land bridge used by humans 12,000 years ago was not in existence 13,500 years ago. If the land bridge was in existence - there is no guarantee of human's crossing
C. There have not been discoveries of fossilized human tools from more than 13,000 years ago made in North America. If there were human tools from than 13,000 years ago - it breaks the argument
D. Archaeologists have an incentive to make up incorrect theories regarding early human migration. Out of scope
E. Human beings did not have a way to reach North America prior to the formation of the land bridge known to have been used by people 12,000 years ago. Even if they had a way - there is no proof of them using that way
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 98
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2017, 20:44
Negation worked for me in this question.

A, D are easy to rule out.

B. The land bridge used by humans 12,000 years ago was not in existence 13,500 years ago. Negate- The land bridge was in existence 13500 years ago. Doesn't break the argument.

C. There have not been discoveries of fossilized human tools from more than 13,000 years ago made in North America. Negate- There have been discoveries of fossils. Breaks the argument. Correct

E. Human beings did not have a way to reach North America prior to the formation of the land bridge known to have been used by people 12,000 years ago. Negate- Human beings had a way to reach NA .. Doesn't break the argument.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 07 Aug 2016
Posts: 83
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Reviews Badge
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2017, 08:52
Like many assumption problems, this problem features an argument with a broad conclusion ("this hypothesis must be false") hanging precariously on one premise (essentially "there are no human fossil remains to support that hypothesis"). A helpful thing to keep in mind on assumption questions - and a reason that the Assumption Negation Technique can be so helpful - is that often the correct answer is necessary to keep the lone existing premise relevant.

Here's how that works on this problem: the lone premise is very specifically worded to include "no human fossil remains." But are human fossil remains the only type of evidence that could indicate or prove human existence?

When choice C is negated, it provides that other type of evidence: "there HAVE been discoveries of fossilized human tools" that date back well before the established theory's timeframe. If this were true, then those purveying the new theory would have evidence for it, thereby directly weakening this argument. Choice C therefore is correct. And note again its structural function - as it reads pre-negation, it helps to protect the current premise (there are no human fossils that support the new theory) from becoming irrelevant.

Choice A is too broad: there may very well be future discoveries that disprove some current theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will disprove the current prevailing theory about when people arrived in North America. Even if that theory is ultimately disproven, too, that doesn't mean it will be replaced with the proposed new theory.

Choice B fails the negation test: if you negate B, you'll see that the land bridge WAS in existence 13,500 years ago. But is that evidence that people were there, particularly in light of the existing premise that there is no fossil evidence from that 1,500 year period?

Choice D similarly is unnecessary: it doesn't have to be that the archaeologists lied, as they could just be wrong. If you negate it and it then says "archaeologists do not have a reason to make up incorrect theories" the argument could still hold - they'd be wrong and maybe even bad scientists, just not liars.

Choice E also fails the negation test: if you negate it, it actually gives a little more hope to the new theory by saying that people DID have a way to get to North America even without the land bridge. That certainly doesn't prove the case, but it leaves the door open even a bit further that the new theory could be correct.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 195
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2017, 04:37
1
According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit North America came across a land bridge between northeast Asia and Alaska approximately 12,000 years ago. But a group of archaeologists now theorizes that some humans arrived in Baja California approximately 13,500 years ago. This hypothesis must be false, however, because the oldest human fossil remains that have been found in North America are only 12,000 years old.

The argument above assumes that:

A. There will be no new archaeological discoveries in North America that disprove conventional theories.
B. The land bridge used by humans 12,000 years ago was not in existence 13,500 years ago.
C. There have not been discoveries of fossilized human tools from more than 13,000 years ago made in North America.
D. Archaeologists have an incentive to make up incorrect theories regarding early human migration.
E. Human beings did not have a way to reach North America prior to the formation of the land bridge known to have been used by people 12,000 years ago.

Predicted answer: Since fossils found are only 12,000 years old and therefore the author states the hypothesis is wrong. For this to be true, the author must assume that no fossils found are 13,000 years old or later. And C clearly states that.
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 50007
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2018, 21:34
gauravraos wrote:
According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit North America came across a land bridge between northeast Asia and Alaska approximately 12,000 years ago. But a group of archaeologists now theorizes that some humans arrived in Baja California approximately 13,500 years ago. This hypothesis must be false, however, because the oldest human fossil remains that have been found in North America are only 12,000 years old.

The argument above assumes that:

A. There will be no new archaeological discoveries in North America that disprove conventional theories.
B. The land bridge used by humans 12,000 years ago was not in existence 13,500 years ago.
C. There have not been discoveries of fossilized human tools from more than 13,000 years ago made in North America.
D. Archaeologists have an incentive to make up incorrect theories regarding early human migration.
E. Human beings did not have a way to reach North America prior to the formation of the land bridge known to have been used by people 12,000 years ago.


VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:



Like many assumption problems, this problem features an argument with a broad conclusion ("this hypothesis must be false") hanging precariously on one premise (essentially "there are no human fossil remains to support that hypothesis"). A helpful thing to keep in mind on assumption questions - and a reason that the Assumption Negation Technique can be so helpful - is that often the correct answer is necessary to keep the lone existing premise relevant.

Here's how that works on this problem: the lone premise is very specifically worded to include "no human fossil remains." But are human fossil remains the only type of evidence that could indicate or prove human existence?

When choice C is negated, it provides that other type of evidence: "there HAVE been discoveries of fossilized human tools" that date back well before the established theory's timeframe. If this were true, then those purveying the new theory would have evidence for it, thereby directly weakening this argument. Choice C therefore is correct. And note again its structural function - as it reads pre-negation, it helps to protect the current premise (there are no human fossils that support the new theory) from becoming irrelevant.

Choice A is too broad: there may very well be future discoveries that disprove some current theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will disprove the current prevailing theory about when people arrived in North America. Even if that theory is ultimately disproven, too, that doesn't mean it will be replaced with the proposed new theory.

Choice B fails the negation test: if you negate B, you'll see that the land bridge WAS in existence 13,500 years ago. But is that evidence that people were there, particularly in light of the existing premise that there is no fossil evidence from that 1,500 year period?

Choice D similarly is unnecessary: it doesn't have to be that the archaeologists lied, as they could just be wrong. If you negate it and it then says "archaeologists do not have a reason to make up incorrect theories" the argument could still hold - they'd be wrong and maybe even bad scientists, just not liars.

Choice E also fails the negation test: if you negate it, it actually gives a little more hope to the new theory by saying that people DID have a way to get to North America even without the land bridge. That certainly doesn't prove the case, but it leaves the door open even a bit further that the new theory could be correct.
_________________

New to the Math Forum?
Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread | All You Need for Quant | PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!!

Resources:
GMAT Math Book | Triangles | Polygons | Coordinate Geometry | Factorials | Circles | Number Theory | Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets | PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders | GMAT Prep Software Analysis | SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS) | Tricky questions from previous years.

Collection of Questions:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat

DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.


What are GMAT Club Tests?
Extra-hard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2018, 06:26
Bunuel wrote:
gauravraos wrote:
According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit North America came across a land bridge between northeast Asia and Alaska approximately 12,000 years ago. But a group of archaeologists now theorizes that some humans arrived in Baja California approximately 13,500 years ago. This hypothesis must be false, however, because the oldest human fossil remains that have been found in North America are only 12,000 years old.

The argument above assumes that:

A. There will be no new archaeological discoveries in North America that disprove conventional theories.
B. The land bridge used by humans 12,000 years ago was not in existence 13,500 years ago.
C. There have not been discoveries of fossilized human tools from more than 13,000 years ago made in North America.
D. Archaeologists have an incentive to make up incorrect theories regarding early human migration.
E. Human beings did not have a way to reach North America prior to the formation of the land bridge known to have been used by people 12,000 years ago.


VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:



Like many assumption problems, this problem features an argument with a broad conclusion ("this hypothesis must be false") hanging precariously on one premise (essentially "there are no human fossil remains to support that hypothesis"). A helpful thing to keep in mind on assumption questions - and a reason that the Assumption Negation Technique can be so helpful - is that often the correct answer is necessary to keep the lone existing premise relevant.

Here's how that works on this problem: the lone premise is very specifically worded to include "no human fossil remains." But are human fossil remains the only type of evidence that could indicate or prove human existence?

When choice C is negated, it provides that other type of evidence: "there HAVE been discoveries of fossilized human tools" that date back well before the established theory's timeframe. If this were true, then those purveying the new theory would have evidence for it, thereby directly weakening this argument. Choice C therefore is correct. And note again its structural function - as it reads pre-negation, it helps to protect the current premise (there are no human fossils that support the new theory) from becoming irrelevant.

Choice A is too broad: there may very well be future discoveries that disprove some current theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will disprove the current prevailing theory about when people arrived in North America. Even if that theory is ultimately disproven, too, that doesn't mean it will be replaced with the proposed new theory.

Choice B fails the negation test: if you negate B, you'll see that the land bridge WAS in existence 13,500 years ago. But is that evidence that people were there, particularly in light of the existing premise that there is no fossil evidence from that 1,500 year period?

Choice D similarly is unnecessary: it doesn't have to be that the archaeologists lied, as they could just be wrong. If you negate it and it then says "archaeologists do not have a reason to make up incorrect theories" the argument could still hold - they'd be wrong and maybe even bad scientists, just not liars.

Choice E also fails the negation test: if you negate it, it actually gives a little more hope to the new theory by saying that people DID have a way to get to North America even without the land bridge. That certainly doesn't prove the case, but it leaves the door open even a bit further that the new theory could be correct.
Bunuel,

This was one question where I didn't use negation and opted for A. I eliminated C because I thought that talking about tools is although logical but a bit far away from the actual argument, because of the following reasons.

If I would make a statement that theory A cannot be true because, the discoveries made till now approve of theory B, I would certainly assume that in future theory A cannot be proved right against the conventional theory B which was upheld till now.

Thus, my question is that if we are stuck between two options like A and C here, application of negation if works on one and not the other, can we directly opt for the former ??

Regards

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
GMAT Club Bot
Re: According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N &nbs [#permalink] 14 May 2018, 06:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by

According to the traditional hypothesis, the first humans to inhabit N

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


cron
Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.