Last visit was: 18 May 2026, 16:43 It is currently 18 May 2026, 16:43
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
605-655 (Medium)|   Inference|                  
avatar
brianmontanaweb
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2022
Last visit: 03 Sep 2022
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
15
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 108
Kudos: 15
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 10 May 2022, 16:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
parkhydel
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.

The information given, if accurate, provides the strongest support for which of the following hypotheses?

A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators.
B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact.


CR09760.02
Show more

The question wants use to identify the hypothesis and find the strongest support for it. We'll want to identify the conclusion of the argument as we read through it and the purpose. "to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do" is the hypothesis and the conclusion of the paragraph. There is evidence prior to that mentioning the duckbill tail as being weak. Both of those will be key in finding the right answer.

A restates the hypothesis and doesn't provide support for it. The statement is still kinda strong, holding on to it for now.

B is another restate. Now there seems to be a pattern of restating what's in the argument but not providing new evidence to support the hypothesis. Eliminating A and B.

C, and D are out of scope since they extend outside the hypothesis content.

E contains "if used to ward off predators" then provides evidence of the outcome if the hypothesis is true. Correct!
User avatar
aishu0091
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2020
Last visit: 16 Nov 2023
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 42
Posts: 68
Kudos: 19
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 01 Jul 2022, 20:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators.: outside info, we cannot confirm that they would. I mean if they would - great but we can't be sure.
B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.: not mentioned in the passage, this is outside information.
C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators. - outside information/ new information. not mentioned in the passage.
D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.: outside/ new information.
E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact. : makes sense and is the only one left and not eliminated.
avatar
nkshmalik1
avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Last visit: 10 Nov 2022
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 142
Posts: 28
Kudos: 13
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 15 Jul 2022, 02:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun and all the experts.

Just a quick runthough my thought porcess-

a) the dinosaur has delicate and thinner tail bones.
b) it has to whip its tail faster than lizards do to ward off bigger predators

Here delicate and thinner tail bones don't imply dinosaur may incur damage while warding off the predator? We cant deduce that based on the word "delicate".

Is my thinking correct or can we deduce inferences based on words such as delicate?

Thanks

parkhydel
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.

The information given, if accurate, provides the strongest support for which of the following hypotheses?

A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators.
B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact.


CR09760.02
Show more
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 6,104
Own Kudos:
5,143
 [2]
Given Kudos: 742
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 6,104
Kudos: 5,143
 [2]
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 15 Jul 2022, 21:01
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nkshmalik1
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun and all the experts.

Just a quick runthough my thought porcess-

a) the dinosaur has delicate and thinner tail bones.
b) it has to whip its tail faster than lizards do to ward off bigger predators

Here delicate and thinner tail bones don't imply dinosaur may incur damage while warding off the predator? We cant deduce that based on the word "delicate".

Is my thinking correct or can we deduce inferences based on words such as delicate?

Thanks
Show more
Hi nkshmalik1,

While you're not wrong, it's important to remember that we're not looking at absolutes here. We'll come back to that point towards the end.

Here's the information given to us:
1. Duckbill tails were (proportionately) weaker than the tails of monitor lizards ("the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate").
2. Duckbills faced (proportionately) much larger predators ("to ward off their proportionately much larger predators").
3. Duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster ("duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do").

Now, the stem asks us to pick the option that the given information "provides the strongest support for". This means that we aren't necessarily looking at the information given to us as proof. A less than 100% answer is absolutely acceptable here, as long as it's better than the other options.

From (1), (2), and (3), we know that if they used their tails against predators, duckbills would have had to whip weaker tails considerably faster at much larger targets. Given all this information, is it fair to say that the tails of monitor lizards are less likely to sustain damage from the impact of striking their predators than the tails of duckbills would have been from the impact of striking their predators? That's what option E is about.

Since we seem to have enough information to say that the tails of duckbills would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact of striking predators, we don't reject E.
User avatar
Veenu221
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jun 2024
Last visit: 10 Dec 2025
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Statistics
Posts: 2
Kudos: 1
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 18 Nov 2024, 17:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We can deduce in option B that it might be more likely to sustain the damage but in option E it is comparing the strength of tail of lizard and duckbill and it is clearly given that duckbill tail is fragile than lizard

" Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do."

than how does it more likely that the duckbill would sustain the damage..

Please enlighten!
HaileyCusimano
parkhydel
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.

The information given, if accurate, provides the strongest support for which of the following hypotheses?

A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators.
B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact.


CR09760.02


In inference questions, we can eliminate any answer that could be false to arrive at the answer that is directly supported by the given information.

A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators. <- we don't know how much more fierce duckbill predators are as compared to the predators of monitor lizards, so there is nothing here that guarantees that duckbills would, or would even be capable of, warding off predators with their tails, even if the construction of their tails is similar to the monitor lizard's. We can eliminate.

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact. <- Again, while it is likely that if the duckbill's tail is more fragile, *if* it did strike a predator it might be more likely to sustain damage - but there's nothing in the stimulus that definitively tells us they used their tails for this purpose and "frequently" damaged their tailbones.

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators. <- Again... this could be true, or could be false. We don't have anything that definitively tells us that duckbills had other means of warding off predators. Because this is not guaranteed by the stimulus, we can eliminate it!

D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are. <- I'd be suspicious of this language right off the bat. We don't *know* without a shadow of a doubt that duckbills were at much greater risk. They might be, but they could also be in a position where they have fewer predators or other means of protecting themselves. Because this information is not provided to us, this answer could certainly be false and thus is not an inference.

E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact. <- This sounds a lot like the qualifier I addressed earlier with (B)! While we don't know that the duckbill uses its tail for the same purposes the monitor lizard does, *if* the duckbill did use its tail to ward off predators, because its tail is more fragile and its predators larger, it would have been more likely to sustain damage from the impact. Bingo - we've found our answer!

With inference questions, if we can reason through a way an answer could be false within the parameters of the stimulus (given information) we can use process of elimination to identify the answer that must be true!

I hope this helps!
Show more
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 6,104
Own Kudos:
5,143
 [1]
Given Kudos: 742
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 6,104
Kudos: 5,143
 [1]
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 18 Nov 2024, 20:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Veenu221
We can deduce in option B that it might be more likely to sustain the damage but in option E it is comparing the strength of tail of lizard and duckbill and it is clearly given that duckbill tail is fragile than lizard

" Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do."

than how does it more likely that the duckbill would sustain the damage..

Please enlighten!
Show more
Hi Veenu221,

Sustain can have multiple meanings, but to sustain damage means to suffer damage. Here's another example: "People are more likely to sustain an injury as they get older", which means that people are more likely to receive or suffer an injury as they get older.

The rest of your analysis is fine.
User avatar
GaganB
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2022
Last visit: 14 May 2026
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly lon 19 Mar 2026, 03:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Important to understand the essence of each option like a one word heading and then see which one fits the argument and does the needful.
The argument is about duckbill dinosaurs' tails and that they were thinner and delicate and that duckbill dinosaurs had to whip it faster to ward off predators. The argument is about the tail and how duckbill dinosaurs safeguarding themselves from predators.
Now, see each option for its essence and evaluate accordingly:
Option A - Talks about Effectiveness - Relevant to the argument? No. Reject
Option B - Tailbones were 'frequently damaged' - Relevant to argument? Maybe/ maybe not... May strengthen/ may not strengthen...Inconclusive - Hence Reject.
Option C - Going beyond tails. Reject.
Option D - Referring to risk of being killed. Beyond scope. Reject.
Option E - Sustaining damage from impact. Looks like B - damage to tailbones, but B was very direct in saying that the tail bones frequently damaged, whereas E says that more likely the tails were able to sustain damage. E provides more safe support to the argument. Also, if only the tailbones were sustaining damage from the impact that they the duckbill dinosaurs could continue to use the tailbones against predators successfully.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7393 posts
AbhishekP220108
579 posts
bhanu29
368 posts