Analyses of cave paintings in the Lausanne region of Switzerland have

A
because if the animals are neither native and nor locally visible then the possibility is the painter saw it where these were present.

GMATNinja - Can you explain why option choice C is wrong? If the animals are depicted in the other regions of Switzerland, then they wouldn't have to travel to Italy.

arigatoxoxo Option D is wrong because it is not necessary for the individuals who made the paintings to engage in seasonal migration. Even by visiting once to one region of Europe to another they could have witnessed those animals that are common on the Italian peninsula. So, even if negate this option the argument could still hold.

nikitathegreat
Option C is wrong because when we negate this option it becomes:
The animals depicted in the paintings in Lausanne are depicted in the cave paintings of other regions of Switzerland.

So, even if paintings are depicted in the cave paintings of other regions of Switzerland, it could still be true that the individuals from those other regions traveled to Italy to see these animals. Basically, depiction of these animals in the cave paintings of other regions of Switzerland does not necessarily mean that they existed in those regions at that point of time.

Try reviewing this post if you haven't already. A few highlights:

(E) compares [the fact] that she ROSE to [the fact that] she IS a woman. Notice that the things being compared include both a subject and a verb, and both describe an action performed by a subject (the editor). Comparing these two actions (or, more specifically, the fact that these two things happened) is perfectly clear and logical.

In (A) and (B), "being" is a noun (a gerund, if you like the jargon; for more on "being" check out this post). So (A), (B), and (C) are similar in that they all try to compare "[the fact] that the new managing editor ROSE {...}" to a noun that does NOT have corresponding action (either "being a woman" or "womanhood"). That's a bit like saying this:

"The fact that Tim drives a Maserati is cooler than your iPhone."

Is the comparison above WRONG? Maybe not. After all, the sentence does compare two things. But the comparison would be much clearer if it said something like this:

"The fact that Tim drives a Maserati is cooler than the fact that you own an iPhone."

Now we're comparing apples to apples: (1) the fact that one thing is true to (2) the fact that another thing is true.

Are (A), (B), and (C) absolutely WRONG because they violate some rigid grammar rules governing comparisons? No, but the comparison in (E) is much better. (Note that D is out because of the verb tense. She still IS a woman.)

I hope that helps!

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Whenever the GMAT asks you to find an assumption on which an argument relies, remember that your job is to first determine what the core part of the argument is and then to use the Assumption Negation technique to go through each of your answer choices and decide which of the answer choices, if negated, would most seriously damage the argument presented.

Here, you are told that some cave paintings in Lausanne, Switzerland contain depictions of animals found not in Switzerland but in Italy. From that, it is concluded that the paintings were made by individuals who traveled to Italy, saw the animals, and then returned and made the paintings. But could there be another reason that people in Lausanne could have been able to paint the Italian animals?

Choice (A), when negated, becomes "The animals depicted were native to Switzerland when the paintings were made before going locally extinct." This would directly undermine the argument that the only way that painters in Switzerland could have seen the animals is if they had gone to Italy. Choice (A) is therefore correct.

Choice (B) becomes "Not all of the Lausanne paintings contain representations of nonnative species." Because the argument does not depend on all of the paintings being of nonnative animals, this is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

Choice (C) becomes "The animals depicted in the paintings in Lausanne are depicted in the cave paintings in other regions of Switzerland." This would not change the conclusion given.

Choice (D) becomes "Tribes of humans that made the paintings did not engage in seasonal migration from one region of Europe to another." While this is close to contradicting what is given in the passage, it is talking about tribes in general, which does not mean that an individual or two could not have travelled to Italy and back again.

Choice (E) becomes "There is a region where animals typical of both Switzerland and Italy coexist" when negated. While this is similar to A, the argument depends on the distribution of Italy's animals, not of Switzerland's, so choice (E) can be eliminated.

what if those animals painted in other regions of Switzerland means the animals could be found in those regions and the individuals would have traveled there, instead of traveling Italy? can't (C) be the answer?