Last visit was: 14 Jul 2025, 01:42 It is currently 14 Jul 2025, 01:42
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
User avatar
AshutoshB
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Last visit: 16 Jan 2022
Posts: 323
Own Kudos:
2,069
 [16]
Given Kudos: 348
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Products:
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 323
Kudos: 2,069
 [16]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
14
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
AshutoshB
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Last visit: 16 Jan 2022
Posts: 323
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 348
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Products:
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 323
Kudos: 2,069
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 13 Jul 2025
Posts: 11,295
Own Kudos:
41,728
 [1]
Given Kudos: 333
Status:Math and DI Expert
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 11,295
Kudos: 41,728
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
AshutoshB
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Last visit: 16 Jan 2022
Posts: 323
Own Kudos:
2,069
 [1]
Given Kudos: 348
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Products:
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 323
Kudos: 2,069
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chetan2u
AshutoshB
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Genetics can make you dislike vegetables.

REASONING: Volunteers who don’t like vegetables have the XRV2G gene.

E. CORRECT. If everyone has the XRV2G gene, then it can’t affect vegetable tastes.

AshutoshB, the solution is of some other question and does not belong here.

Agricultural scientist: Wild apples are considerably smaller than cultivated apples found in supermarkets. In one particular region, archaeologists have looked for remains of cultivated apples dating from 5,000 years ago, around the time people first started cultivating fruit. But the only remains of apples that archaeologists have found from this period are from fruits the same size as the wild apples native to the region. So apples were probably not cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago.

The agricultural scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) fails to consider that even if a plant was not cultivated in a given region at a specific time, it may have been cultivated in nearby regions at that time"
The argument talks of that specific region itself and does not talk of cultivation in general in that period. So choice is out of scope

(B) fails to consider that plants that have been cultivated for only a short time may tend to resemble their wild counterparts much more closely than plants that have been cultivated for a long time"
CORRECT. we are talking of the remnants of the earliest cultivated apples, it may be that the earliest were of the same size of wild apples and it is now that the sizes have become visibly different

(C) takes for granted that all apples are either the size of wild apples or the size of the cultivated apples now found in supermarkets"
out of scope

(D) employs a premise that is incompatible with the conclusion it is supposed to justify"
uses the premise that is compatible. Discovery of remains of earliest cultivated apples correctly relates to the conclusion

(E) uses a claim that presupposes the truth of its main conclusion as part of the justification for that conclusion
There is only one conclusion. so wrong

B

Thanks for pointing out, Corrected the response
User avatar
RiyaJ0032
Joined: 13 Dec 2021
Last visit: 12 Jul 2025
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 37
Posts: 155
Kudos: 10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi experts,

KarishmaB
MartyMurray
GMATNinjaTwo

for (B) to the valid option, don't we have to assume that apple 5000 years ago was cultivated for a short time?
Since nothing in the stem makes us infer this, (B) can be eliminated

because we do not really know the "plant" talked about in this option is referring to the apple or some other plant

on the other hand , isn't (C) more plausible?
because what if apples 5000 years ago were the same size as the wild apples and later they became bigger

but because the author is only considering the possibility that,
an apple has a size of a wild apple or it has a size of cultivated apple found in supermarket

she has overlooked that the apple could also have been the size of a wild apple, in the past

Please, if someone can help
Thanks!
AshutoshB
Agricultural scientist: Wild apples are considerably smaller than cultivated apples found in supermarkets. In one particular region, archaeologists have looked for remains of cultivated apples dating from 5,000 years ago, around the time people first started cultivating fruit. But the only remains of apples that archaeologists have found from this period are from fruits the same size as the wild apples native to the region. So apples were probably not cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago.

The agricultural scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) fails to consider that even if a plant was not cultivated in a given region at a specific time, it may have been cultivated in nearby regions at that time"

(B) fails to consider that plants that have been cultivated for only a short time may tend to resemble their wild counterparts much more closely than plants that have been cultivated for a long time"

(C) takes for granted that all apples are either the size of wild apples or the size of the cultivated apples now found in supermarkets"

(D) employs a premise that is incompatible with the conclusion it is supposed to justify"

(E) uses a claim that presupposes the truth of its main conclusion as part of the justification for that conclusion

LSAT Official
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,106
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,106
Kudos: 74,310
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We don't have to assume it. It is a logical inference. We are given:

In one particular region, archaeologists have looked for remains of cultivated apples dating from 5,000 years ago, around the time people first started cultivating fruit.

If people first started cultivating fruit around 5000 years ago and we are talking about cultivated apples of that time, then those fruits had been cultivated for a short time only at that time. It would have been just a few years since the cultivation of apples started.



RiyaJ0032
Hi experts,

KarishmaB
MartyMurray
GMATNinjaTwo

for (B) to the valid option, don't we have to assume that apple 5000 years ago was cultivated for a short time?
Since nothing in the stem makes us infer this, (B) can be eliminated

because we do not really know the "plant" talked about in this option is referring to the apple or some other plant

on the other hand , isn't (C) more plausible?
because what if apples 5000 years ago were the same size as the wild apples and later they became bigger

but because the author is only considering the possibility that,
an apple has a size of a wild apple or it has a size of cultivated apple found in supermarket

she has overlooked that the apple could also have been the size of a wild apple, in the past

Please, if someone can help
Thanks!
AshutoshB
Agricultural scientist: Wild apples are considerably smaller than cultivated apples found in supermarkets. In one particular region, archaeologists have looked for remains of cultivated apples dating from 5,000 years ago, around the time people first started cultivating fruit. But the only remains of apples that archaeologists have found from this period are from fruits the same size as the wild apples native to the region. So apples were probably not cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago.

The agricultural scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) fails to consider that even if a plant was not cultivated in a given region at a specific time, it may have been cultivated in nearby regions at that time"

(B) fails to consider that plants that have been cultivated for only a short time may tend to resemble their wild counterparts much more closely than plants that have been cultivated for a long time"

(C) takes for granted that all apples are either the size of wild apples or the size of the cultivated apples now found in supermarkets"

(D) employs a premise that is incompatible with the conclusion it is supposed to justify"

(E) uses a claim that presupposes the truth of its main conclusion as part of the justification for that conclusion

LSAT Official
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts