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

 It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 06:46

### 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

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

# Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag

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

### Hide Tags

Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2019, 00:59
2
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (02:44) correct 46% (02:48) wrong based on 198 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disagree about which species of fish. Since biologists agree that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved, on the basis of a close match between the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish and that of frogs Dr. Stevens-Hoyt claims that this ancestor must be lungfish. Dr. Grover, on the other hand, contends that mitochondrial DNA evolves too rapidly to be a reliable indicator of relationships between species over long periods of time, and citing the close chemical match between the hemoglobin of coelacanths (a saltwater fish) and that of tadpoles, claims that human beings must be descended from coelacanths.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the dispute above by the proposition that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved?

(A) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish.

(B) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths.

(C) It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.

(D) It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution.

(E) It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species.

_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 317
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
Re: Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2019, 01:26
1
In the above premise, the boldfaced statement is something on the basis of which the two scientists presented their claims, so it is something which is agreed by both scientist

(A) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish. Wrong as stated above

(B) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths. WRONG it is not the evidence

(C) It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths. WRONG it is not the evidence

(D) It is an assumption that both parties to the disputed use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution. Correct as per our thinking

(E) It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2019, 22:15
Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disagree about which species of fish. Since biologists agree that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved, on the basis of a close match between the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish and that of frogs Dr. Stevens-Hoyt claims that this ancestor must be lungfish. Dr. Grover, on the other hand, contends that mitochondrial DNA evolves too rapidly to be a reliable indicator of relationships between species over long periods of time, and citing the close chemical match between the hemoglobin of coelacanths (a saltwater fish) and that of tadpoles, claims that human beings must be descended from coelacanths.

Boil it down-Scientists all agree that humans came from fish
Biologists all agree that frogs are related to the kind of fish humans came from

Dr. Stevens-Hoyt- a close match between the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish--> ancestor must be lungfish

Dr. Grover- mitochondrial DNA unreliable
close chemical match between the hemoglobin of coelacanths (a saltwater fish) and that of tadpoles ---> ancestor must be coelacanths

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the dispute above by the proposition that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved?

(A) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish. - It is not used as evidence and it is also not used as evidence AGAINST anything. No one is even arguing AGAINST anything; both doctors are simply arguing for their hypothesis.
(B) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths. - Correct
(C) It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths. - Incorrect - The doctors definitely only argue for lungfish or coelacanth.But this doesn't mean that the statement is used to say that "Because frogs are definitely related to the fish from which human beings evolved, so humans only evolved from either X or Y."
(D) It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution. - Correct
(E) It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species. - Irrelevant

_________________
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
Intern
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Posts: 49
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V29
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2019, 00:22
S1 on the basis of a close match between the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish and that of frogs Dr. Stevens-Hoyt claims that this ancestor must be lungfish.
S2 r. Grover, on the other hand,citing the close chemical match between the hemoglobin of coelacanths (a saltwater fish) and that of tadpoles, claims that human beings must be descended from coelacanths

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the dispute above by the proposition that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved?
or role played in dispute in form of examples
(A) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish.
No, irrelevant
(B) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths.
Same as A irrelevant
(C) It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.
This is not evidence as , they used word claim
(D) It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution.
(E) It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species.
No , implication only claim

BY POE ,
D is correct
Director
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 525
Location: United States (KS)
Re: Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2019, 17:04
Quote:
Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disagree about which species of fish. Since biologists agree that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved, on the basis of a close match between the mitochondrial DNA of lungfish and that of frogs Dr. Stevens-Hoyt claims that this ancestor must be lungfish. Dr. Grover, on the other hand, contends that mitochondrial DNA evolves too rapidly to be a reliable indicator of relationships between species over long periods of time, and citing the close chemical match between the hemoglobin of coelacanths (a saltwater fish) and that of tadpoles, claims that human beings must be descended from coelacanths.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the dispute above by the proposition that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved?

(A) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from lungfish, it is cited as evidence against the claim that humans are descended from lungfish.

(B) Since it implies that human beings are not descended from coelacanths, it is offered as evidence against the claim that human beings are descended from coelacanths.

(C) It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths.

(D) It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution.

(E) It implies that either a match of mitochondrial DNA or a match of hemoglobin between lungfish and coelacanths would show that human beings evolved from one of these two species.

Can someone actually boldface in the paragraph?
_________________
----The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long ----
Software Tester currently in USA ( )
Re: Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag   [#permalink] 04 Oct 2019, 17:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Biologists agree that human beings evolved from a fish, but they disag

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

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