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!
_________________

A)No info from argument supports the effectiveness would have been effective
B)We don't know if they really used their tails to strike
C)Again we don't know if they really used the tail to ward off-->> We can't say tail is used as a waynot the only means
D)were at much greater risk of being killed The risk of getting killed can't be estimated as : let's say Lizard has more predators than dinosaur ? Who knows who are at risk ? it may have other defences

E) if used to ward off predators Now that's the if case: but there's a catch which might make you skip this option: sustain=defend and also sustain=suffer. In this context its Suffer. So since all other answer's are far from OA:E. This option is best among all and is a cakewalk.

Pls. HIT KUDOS
(need few kudos for needs )
_________________

Two choices come close, B and E.
In B, although duckbills used their tails to ward of predators and also the tails were more delicate, therefore it might imply that the tails might get damaged from the impact. But the usage of "frequently damaged" cannot be implied. How do we know the rate at which predators attacked duckbill? Also were there other parts of the body which duck-billed used to ward of the predators, because it knew that its tail is damage prone. So this is a weak choice.

In E however there is a direct comparison between tails of duckbills and monitor lizards. Duckbills tails would be more likely to sustain damage that monitor lizard because it was more delicate.

The answer is E.

VeritasPrepHailey

Hi Hailey,

I would like to know what sustains means in the context of the sentence. Does it mean more likely to suffer or does it mean more likely to handle the impact well ? I think I got this question incorrect becayse I was not able to understand the meaning of the word sustain in the case.

Thank You
Sonal

Hi Sonal,

I can certainly see where this question might have been confusing without the context of "sustain." Sustain has two major uses. It can mean "to suffer or undergo," especially an injury, or it can mean "to strengthen and support." (for instance, to sustain life.) Here, however, the context tells us "sustain damage." So, it wouldn't make very much sense to say "strengthen or support" damage. The sentence means "to suffer or undergo" damage.

That said, if you do find that the context of a word is what's holding you back - process of elimination is definitely your friend here! If you can determine that all four of the answers with meaning that were clear to you are definitive wrong, you may have been able to get by on this question (though the context will be helpful moving forward)!

I hope this helps!
_________________

Tried my hand on this one. Here's how i did it.

As its an inference question four options would be false or one would be true among five.
A - WRONG. A comparison of who whips the tail faster might still be true but we are not sure whether duckbill's tail will be effective at warding off it's predators. We can't be certain since monitor lizard's tail can also be equally effective.
B - WRONG. The word 'delicate' might make some to opt for this but it doesn't mean that the tail will damage. True that sometimes it may but whether it happens 'frequently', we are not sure.
C - WRONG. This is the easiest to get rid off. Again we are not sure if the tail is the only means for duckbills to ward off predators.
D - WRONG. Initially, this looks promising but that comparison of risk of getting killed spoils the option. This suffers from the similar errors as option A does.
E - CORRECT. The option balances out the comparison between the two. If both try to ward off their predators, it the tail of duckbill which is likely to get damaged sine its more delicate than monitor's.

Answer E.
_________________

Only one word to focus on "delicate" ..which means easily broken .

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?

The Arguments says :
-Duckbill dinosaurs and monitor Lizard both have long tail
-Monitor Lizard uses it tail to strike its predators
-Both have tails that are similar, except that Duckbill dinosaurs has thinner and delicate bone in its tail.
-Duckbill dinosaurs have to whip faster than monitor lizards do, to keep away his predator.

We need to infer based on this information given in the argument. Cannot do pre-thinking in this case so using POE


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.
- Already argument says that Duckbill dinosaurs have to whip their tail faster than monitor lizards do . This is already given in the argument. Nothing is mentioned about how it will be effective to ward off fiercest predator if it whips faster.
so this option is out of scope as it talks about things beyond the scope of information given.Hence Eliminate A

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
- As given Duckbill dinosaurs have to whip their tail faster than monitor Lizard to ward off their predator. Also is given that their bones in tail were thinner and delicate. But how can we infer that were they frequently damaged. May be their thinner and delicate bone helped they whip faster and made them more flexible. so we cannot just think of one definite inference based on given information as multiple possibilities are there. For inference question we need something definite. So eliminate B

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
- This is clearly out of scope, argument does not discuss other means to ward off predators . Eliminate C

D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
- This too is clearly out of scope as there is no comparison being made about who is at more risk of being killed by predators. Eliminate D

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.

-Correct
- It is given that Duckbill dinosaurs have thinner and delicate tail than monitor lizard, so" if "used to ward off predators we can infer that it might get damage.

Ans choice E

Hope it helps!

Is it not true that if duckbills could not whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do , then duckbill's tail would not have been effective at warding off the predators. It is because their tails are similar – duckbill’s tail need speed of whipping to have at least the same effect as monitor lizards do.
A says duckbills need to have ATLEAST higher speed than monitor lizards do to have been effective at warding off predators.

What am I missing in A ?
Is it because of fiercest predators? We don’t know whether it would be SUFFICIENCT enough?
I am confused that unless have speed , there is no way it can be effective.

Please suggest AndrewN sir VeritasPrepHailey

Well, imSKR, it is true that fiercest predators does not help, since we have no information in the passage to speculate on such predators. But beyond this, we cannot assert that just because duckbills may have been able to whip their tails faster than modern-day monitors do, they would have been able to ward off predators. The passage merely indicates that duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster [to ward off their proportionately much larger predators]. Not only is this speculative information not definitive—again, we cannot say for certain that a faster tail whip would have kept the duckbills safe—but we are also missing the keyword considerably in (A). The answer just says faster, and that might not qualify, per the passage.

I hope that helps. I have done so many of these CR and LSAT logical reasoning questions lately that I am seeing them through a new lens. As soon as I laid eyes on (E), I knew it was the answer. That process took just over a minute.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the question.

- Andrew
_________________

For those who did not understand E:

In formal language I've fount this definition:


If it was this one, the meaning would be the opposite:


Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sustain

GMATNinja , what is your take on this matter? I've never seen such problem in verbal questions... Maybe It was already explained above, but I felt that there could be 2 ways of interpreting the word

nightblade354
_________________

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. -- Not supported by the argument. For all we know, the tail of duckbill is more sensitive and hence may not be very effective at warding off. Eliminate.

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact. -- "frequently" damaged. Well what if only small predators attack then? Tailbone isn't likely to be "frequently" damaged. Yes, it may sustain more dmg than tail of monitor lizard.

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators. -- Completely irrelevant. Eliminate.

D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are. -- Too strong an inference. "Killed". We can't infer this from the passage. What we can infer is relative amount of more damage / injury.

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. -- Uses a comparison with monitor lizard. This can be inferred from the passage.

VeritasPrepHailey wrote a great post above that addresses this particular question. As she said, the two biggest things that can help when struggling with the definition of a particular word are context and the process of elimination.

In case it's helpful to anyone, here's our take on the same issue:

Here, the context of (E) certainly implies that “sustain” means “to suffer.” It makes sense for the duckbill’s tail to “suffer” damage, but it is highly unlikely that the tail “supports” damage.

Likewise, even if the definition of “sustain” appears unclear, the process of elimination can be helpful. We can find good reason to say that each of the other four answer choices are wrong. But we can’t necessarily say that (E) is wrong. Sure, (E) MAY be wrong if the intended definition of “sustain” is “to strengthen or support” (which, again, is really unlikely given the context). But the alternative and, given the context, more likely definition of “sustain” would make sense based on the passage.

So we can't DEFINITIVELY say that (E) is not supported by the passage. For that reason, we keep it in.

I hope that helps!
_________________

My problem might be because sustain in latin languages is used as support in this kind of situation... So I’ve eliminated all the alternatives and guest blindly

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Thanks! But I was thrown off by this: Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.

Does the text in blue not imply 'in order to be effective'? Otherwise, why else would they have had to X...

Cheers

Can someone chime in on how best to distinguish between strengthening questions and inference? I get thrown off by the stems...

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.
-effectiveness is nowhere in site…we don’t have the slightest clue whether it would be effective or not
-the fact that they whip it at considerable SPEED is not a sign of effectiveness
B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
-the first part of this choice is what makes it wrong: the passage expresses uncertainty about whether the duckbills do in fact use their tails to ward off predators…
-can we infer that their tailbones were frequently damaged? Possibly since we know it is more delicate..
-however, the main issue is that first part
C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
-there’s nothing to suggest that they do have other means of doing so
D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
-no…this is a silly inference…suppose the duckbill didn’t even have a tail…it could certainly evade predators in other ways
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.
-Correct…notice the conditional ‘if’ …we don’t actually know if the duckbill dinosaurs used their tail to ward off predators
-their tails are also ‘more delicate’ compared to the tail of the lizard…so it’s reasonable to infer that it’s more likely to sustain damage
_________________

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 (we don’t know whether this was true for Duckbill dinosaurs)
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.

If all of the above is true, what could be the 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.
We don’t know how effective the tails are at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators. The information provided does not support this inference. Eliminate.

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.

We know that Monitor lizards used their tails to strike their predators. But we do not know anything of that sort about Duckbill dinosaurs.
The only thing we know is that they had long tails like monitor lizards
Their tails were thin and delicate.

Warding off predators is hypothetical. If duckbills were to use their tails to ward off their predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.
The stimulus doesn’t support B. Eliminate

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.

The stimulus only talks about the tail. We do not know about the other means. Eliminate.

D. Duckbills were at a much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
The information provided does not compare who were at greater risk of being killed by a predator. Eliminate

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.

Sustain means to undergo or suffer.
We know that although the tails of Duckbill dinosaurs were similar to those of Monitor lizards. We also know that duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate.
Hence we can infer that

- 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. Correct.


Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team
_________________

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.

P : Monitor lizards use tails to strike predators and Duckbill dinosaurs has similar tail.
P : Duckbill;s tailbones were thinner + to ward off would have had to whip faster than monitor lizards

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.
-> The argument states that 'duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster to ward off predators' but does not provide us any information if they did or not. Option A in further, make another assumption given the fact they did, it would have been effective. We cannot be certain of the effectiveness while we even do not know whether duckbills did or did not.

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
-> The argument does not provide any information that Duckbills might have used their tails to strike predators. The argument provides information to believe both they did use tails and they did not use tails to standing against predators.

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
-> We cannot be sure. Of course since the tail of duckbills was weak, they might have had other measure to protect them, but they might have had only tails to protect them. Information to determine whether tail was the only measure to protect them is not defined.

D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
-> We do not know this for sure. Duckbills might have had other protective measures.

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.
-> Correct, since the tail of duckbills was thinner and delicate, for sure their tails would have been more likely to sustain damage "if" used to ward off predators.

Hi experts,
I understood why other choices are wrong,
i was confused between B and E. rejected B because it talks in general way as if it is very certain, however author is hypothetically wrote that to ward off predetors, duckbills would have used their tails faster. and E uses similar language.

I chose E, but from above information (from promt), How can we say, their tails would have more likely to sustaine damage than lizard's.
since, its all hypothetical here, there could have been other reason, like in B,
their tails would have been more damaged than lizards.
or maybe duckbills might have needed more momentum to ward off, since their tail is thick and delicate. or maybe they would not have used it to ward off coz the tails were delicate. who knows??

I am just saying I chose E with uncertainty, that could cost time in real exam>
Thanks