Last visit was: 07 Sep 2026, 19:19 It is currently 07 Sep 2026, 19:19
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
605-655 (Medium)|   Bold Face CR|         
User avatar
AbhishekP220108
User avatar
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 705
Own Kudos:
819
 [8]
Given Kudos: 207
GMAT Focus 1: 555 Q81 V78 DI74
GMAT Focus 2: 595 Q84 V78 DI77
Products:
My Reviews Forum Quiz
GMAT Focus 2: 595 Q84 V78 DI77
Posts: 705
Kudos: 819
 [8]
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 03 Jun 2026, 01:00
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (02:17) correct 31% (02:39) wrong based on 466 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths greater than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence offered in support of that rejection.

B. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position the ecologist rejects.

C. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second is evidence that has been used against that position.

D. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second provides evidence in support of that position.

E. The first is an explanation, rejected by the ecologist, that has been offered for a certain finding; the second is that finding.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
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.
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 2,159
Own Kudos:
8,188
 [1]
Given Kudos: 244
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 2,159
Kudos: 8,188
 [1]
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 03 Jun 2026, 04:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Key to getting this question correct is finding the main conclusion in the passage, which is the following:

the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity

Once, we've identified that, we can see how the other parts of the passage, including the boldfaced portions, relate to the main conclusion to correct identify the roles of the boldfaced portions.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 113,211
Own Kudos:
839,842
 [1]
Given Kudos: 111,359
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 113,211
Kudos: 839,842
 [1]
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 03 Jun 2026, 16:21
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AbhishekP220108
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths greater than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence offered in support of that rejection.

B. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position the ecologist rejects.

C. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second is evidence that has been used against that position.

D. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second provides evidence in support of that position.

E. The first is an explanation, rejected by the ecologist, that has been offered for a certain finding; the second is that finding.
Show more

Similar question to practice: https://gmatclub.com/forum/ecologist-th ... 48178.html
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 1,832
Own Kudos:
14,418
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,832
Kudos: 14,418
 [1]
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 04 Jun 2026, 03:15
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths greater than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The ecologist rejects the common view that human activity caused the deforestation. The tree remains are mostly more than four feet deep in peat bogs, and peat builds up slowly, so those trees likely disappeared more than 4,000 years ago, before agriculture began in the Highlands. So the second boldface is evidence against the human-activity explanation and in favor of a natural-process explanation.

A. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence offered in support of that rejection.

This is correct. The first boldface is the common view that the ecologist rejects, and the second boldface supports the rejection by suggesting that the deforestation happened before agriculture began.

B. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position the ecologist rejects.

This is incorrect. The second boldface does not support the human-activity explanation; it weakens it.

C. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second is evidence that has been used against that position.

This is incorrect. The ecologist does not defend the first boldface position.

D. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second provides evidence in support of that position.

This is incorrect. The first boldface is the view the ecologist rejects, not defends.

E. The first is an explanation, rejected by the ecologist, that has been offered for a certain finding; the second is that finding.

This is incorrect. The second boldface is not the finding that the first explains. The first explains the disappearance of forests, while the second is evidence used to reject that explanation.

Answer: (A)
User avatar
durant25
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2026
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 222
Posts: 21
Kudos: 1
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 18 Jun 2026, 09:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I don't understand how we differentiate between seeks to defend vs reject in option A. If the ecologist gives evidence saying it takes peat bogs 1000 years to build 1 foot, doesn't he try to defend the 1st postion?
guddo
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive forests, but these forests have mostly disappeared and been replaced by peat bogs. The common view is that the Highlands’ deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. However, agriculture began in the Highlands less than 2,000 years ago. Peat bogs, which consist of compressed decayed vegetable matter, build up by only about one foot per 1,000 years and, throughout the Highlands, remains of trees in peat bogs are almost all at depths greater than four feet. Since climate changes that occurred between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago favored the development of peat bogs rather than the survival of forests, the deforestation was more likely the result of natural processes than of human activity.

In the ecologist’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The ecologist rejects the common view that human activity caused the deforestation. The tree remains are mostly more than four feet deep in peat bogs, and peat builds up slowly, so those trees likely disappeared more than 4,000 years ago, before agriculture began in the Highlands. So the second boldface is evidence against the human-activity explanation and in favor of a natural-process explanation.

A. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence offered in support of that rejection.

This is correct. The first boldface is the common view that the ecologist rejects, and the second boldface supports the rejection by suggesting that the deforestation happened before agriculture began.

B. The first is a position that the ecologist rejects; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position the ecologist rejects.

This is incorrect. The second boldface does not support the human-activity explanation; it weakens it.

C. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second is evidence that has been used against that position.

This is incorrect. The ecologist does not defend the first boldface position.

D. The first is a position that the ecologist seeks to defend; the second provides evidence in support of that position.

This is incorrect. The first boldface is the view the ecologist rejects, not defends.

E. The first is an explanation, rejected by the ecologist, that has been offered for a certain finding; the second is that finding.

This is incorrect. The second boldface is not the finding that the first explains. The first explains the disappearance of forests, while the second is evidence used to reject that explanation.

Answer: (A)
Show more
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 1,832
Own Kudos:
14,418
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,832
Kudos: 14,418
 [1]
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 18 Jun 2026, 10:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
durant25
I don't understand how we differentiate between seeks to defend vs reject in option A. If the ecologist gives evidence saying it takes peat bogs 1000 years to build 1 foot, doesn't he try to defend the 1st postion?

Show more

The ecologist is not defending the first position, he is rejecting it.

The first position says deforestation was caused by human activity, especially agriculture. But the peat evidence suggests that most tree remains are more than 4 feet deep. Since peat builds up about 1 foot per 1,000 years, those trees likely disappeared more than 4,000 years ago.

Agriculture began less than 2,000 years ago, so the timing does not fit the human-activity explanation. That is why the evidence supports rejecting the first position, not defending it.

The word “However” is also a clue: it introduces evidence against the common view.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,319
Own Kudos:
33,907
Given Kudos: 716
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,319
Kudos: 33,907
Ecologist: The Scottish Highlands were once the site of extensive 18 Jun 2026, 22:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi durant25,

Your instinct is half right: the ecologist does offer the peat-bog evidence, and it is there to defend something. The slip is which position it defends.

Start with whose view the first boldface is. It's the common view - "deforestation was caused by human activity." The ecologist's own conclusion is the opposite: deforestation was more likely natural than human-caused. Since his conclusion contradicts the first boldface, he rejects it - it's not his position to defend, it's the position he's arguing against.

Now the peat-bog evidence (the second boldface). Peat builds ~1 foot per 1,000 years, and the tree remains sit below 4 feet - so those trees vanished more than 4,000 years ago. But agriculture only began less than 2,000 years ago. The trees were already gone long before farming existed. That evidence attacks the human-activity view - which is exactly the rejection. So the evidence supports the rejection of the first position, not the first position itself.

That's the trap: evidence the ecologist offers defends his conclusion, not the view in the first boldface.

Quick test to lock it in: if the first boldface had instead read "deforestation was natural" (the ecologist's own view), would the peat evidence be supporting it or attacking it? Flip that one phrase and watch which choice fits.

Answer: A

durant25
I don't understand how we differentiate between seeks to defend vs reject in option A. If the ecologist gives evidence saying it takes peat bogs 1000 years to build 1 foot, doesn't he try to defend the 1st postion?

Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts