Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 01:20 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 01:20 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
08 Nov 2004, 19:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
74% (02:11) correct
26%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 5278
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Charcoal from a hearth site in Colorado, 2,000 miles south of Alaska, is known to be 11,200 years old. Researchers reasoned that, since glaciers prevented human migration south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago, humans must have come to the Americas more than 18,000 years ago.
Which of the following pieces of new evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was determined that the charcoal from the Colorado site was at least 11,400 years old.
(B) Another campsite was found in New Mexico with remains dated at 16,000 years old.
(C) A computer simulation of glacial activity showed that it would already have been impossible for humans to travel south overland from Alaska 18,500 years ago.
(D) Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was proved that an ice-free corridor allowed passage south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge at least 11,400 years ago.
(E) Studies of various other hunting-gathering populations showed convincingly that, once the glaciers allowed passage, humans could have migrated from Alaska to Colorado in about 20 years.
Which of the following pieces of new evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was determined that the charcoal from the Colorado site was at least 11,400 years old.
(B) Another campsite was found in New Mexico with remains dated at 16,000 years old.
(C) A computer simulation of glacial activity showed that it would already have been impossible for humans to travel south overland from Alaska 18,500 years ago.
(D) Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was proved that an ice-free corridor allowed passage south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge at least 11,400 years ago.
(E) Studies of various other hunting-gathering populations showed convincingly that, once the glaciers allowed passage, humans could have migrated from Alaska to Colorado in about 20 years.
If this question felt shaky,
try an adaptive mini quiz of similar problems in
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →. Free plan gives 5 questions per day.
13 Dec 2018, 13:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
saurabh9gupta
Swat40
Let's take a fresh look at the prompt:
Quote:
The researchers’ conclusion is that humans must have come to the Americas more than 18,000 years ago. Here's how they reach this conclusion:
- Charcoal from a hearth site in Colorado is 11,200 years old. A hearth is a human-made fireplace, so this implies that the charcoal was the result of human activity. (Presumably, the charcoal was laced with THC. Hey, I'm a Coloradan, so I'm allowed to make that joke!)
- In other words, humans were in Colorado at least 11,200 years ago.
- Colorado is 2,000 miles south of Alaska.
- Between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago, glaciers prevented human migration south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge (which connects Alaska and Siberia).
- Therefore, humans must have come to the Americas more than 18,000 years ago.
The charcoal is evidence that humans were in Colorado 11,200 years ago or prior. But humans could not have migrated into the Americas between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago, because they would have been blocked by glaciers during this period. Therefore, humans could not have come to the Americas between 18,000 and 11,200 years ago. So researchers conclude that humans must have come to the Americas prior to 18,000 years ago (implying that the descendants of those initial migrants lit a fire that left behind some charcoal 11,200 years ago).
Quote:
If there were any reason to doubt the evidence, then we’d have a harder time accepting the conclusion. The conclusion focuses on when humans came to the Americas, so any sign that humans could have migrated between 18,000 and 11,200 years ago — despite the glaciers — would certainly weaken the conclusion. New information about the charcoal’s age might help us as well, but knowing the age of the charcoal is kind of far from what we really care about: when humans could have migrated into the Americas.
Quote:
So what? All we know from choice (A) is that humans made a fire at least 200 years earlier than we had originally thought. This doesn't shed any light on when humans came to the Americas, and doesn’t challenge the role of glaciers in blocking human migration. Even if (A) is true, we must still accept the fact that humans couldn’t migrate into the Americas between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago. (A) does nothing to weaken the conclusion, so let's eliminate it.
Quote:
This has no bearing on the argument. Knowing that another human-made site in the Americas existed 16,000 years ago doesn't tell us anything about whether humans could have migrated between 18,000 and 16,000 years ago (a time period when we know that they could not). Consequently, (B) does not weaken the argument, and we'll eliminate it.
Quote:
This slightly strengthens the argument by providing a second source of evidence supporting what we already know about glaciers. If it had been already impossible for humans to travel south 18,500 years ago, then it certainly was impossible for humans to migrate into the Americas between 18,000 and 11,200 years ago.
And since the age of the charcoal remains 11,200 years old, (C) reinforces the author's conclusion that humans must have arrived prior to 18,000 years ago. To be precise, (C) would lead us to believe that humans arrived prior to 18,500 years ago (which by definition is more than 18,000 years ago).
That's why we eliminate (C).
Quote:
This is right on the money! Choice (D) cuts straight through the argument by telling us that the glaciers, in fact, did not prevent all human migration between 18,000 and 11,200 years ago. This new evidence suggests that human migration could have taken place between 11,400 and 11,200 years ago.
Remember, the conclusion states that humans must have come to the Americas more than 18,000 years ago. If (D) is true, then humans could have migrated after 18,000 years ago. This definitely casts doubt on the conclusion, so let’s keep (D) around.
Quote:
Who cares? Choice (E) only tells us about what could have happened once the glaciers allowed passage — i.e., 11,000 years ago. We don’t care about what happened 11,000 years ago. We want to know whether humans could have migrated between 18,000 and 11,200 yearse ago. Eliminate (E).
(D) is the only choice that weakens the conclusion, so it’s our winner.
I hope this helps!
08 Feb 2014, 12:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: humans must have come to the Americas more than 18,000 years ago.
Reasoning: A blockade prevented humans traveling south between 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. If some information showed that the blockade was passable, then the new evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion. Correct answer weakens the conclusion; incorrect answers are neutral to the conclusion or strengthen the conclusion.
A.Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was determined that the charcoal from the Colorado site was at least 11,400 years old. Neutral answer. If the charcoal was exactly 11,400 years old, then the conclusion is weakened. Whereas, if the charcoal was greater than 18,000 years old, then this would strengthen the conclusion. It can go both ways.
B.Another campsite was found in New Mexico with remains dated at 16,000 years old. Neutral. The correct answer must prove that people crossed in between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago. This proves that someone was there 16,000 years ago; the humans could have crossed 2,000 years prior, around 18,000, or sometime shortly after 18,000 years ago.
C.A computer simulation of glacial activity showed that it would already have been impossible for humans to travel south overland from Alaska 18,500 years ago. Strengthens. If the it were impossible to travel south overland from 18,500 years ago, then the conclusion would be strengthened.
D.Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was proved that an ice-free corridor allowed passage south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge at least 11,400 years ago. Correct. If it were possible to cross at least 11,400 years ago, it provides doubt that the glacier prevented all human migration between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago.
E.Studies of various other hunting-gathering populations showed convincingly that, once the glaciers allowed passage, humans could have migrated from Alaska to Colorado in about 20 years. Out of scope/Neutral. This does nothing the conclusion.
IMO D
Reasoning: A blockade prevented humans traveling south between 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. If some information showed that the blockade was passable, then the new evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion. Correct answer weakens the conclusion; incorrect answers are neutral to the conclusion or strengthen the conclusion.
A.Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was determined that the charcoal from the Colorado site was at least 11,400 years old. Neutral answer. If the charcoal was exactly 11,400 years old, then the conclusion is weakened. Whereas, if the charcoal was greater than 18,000 years old, then this would strengthen the conclusion. It can go both ways.
B.Another campsite was found in New Mexico with remains dated at 16,000 years old. Neutral. The correct answer must prove that people crossed in between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago. This proves that someone was there 16,000 years ago; the humans could have crossed 2,000 years prior, around 18,000, or sometime shortly after 18,000 years ago.
C.A computer simulation of glacial activity showed that it would already have been impossible for humans to travel south overland from Alaska 18,500 years ago. Strengthens. If the it were impossible to travel south overland from 18,500 years ago, then the conclusion would be strengthened.
D.Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was proved that an ice-free corridor allowed passage south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge at least 11,400 years ago. Correct. If it were possible to cross at least 11,400 years ago, it provides doubt that the glacier prevented all human migration between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago.
E.Studies of various other hunting-gathering populations showed convincingly that, once the glaciers allowed passage, humans could have migrated from Alaska to Colorado in about 20 years. Out of scope/Neutral. This does nothing the conclusion.
IMO D
General Discussion
