Last visit was: 20 Apr 2026, 22:39

It is currently 20 Apr 2026, 22:39

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 16
Sneak Peek: $200 Off GMAT Prep
12:00 PM EDT
-
11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 4): Paleontologist: Fossil evidence

1 2 3 4 5 6

harishg

Joined: 18 Dec 2018

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

174

Given Kudos: 31

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Posts: 176

Kudos: 174

03 Jul 2025, 09:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

A - This would weaken the researchers' whole argument rather than that of the paleontologist. We are concerned with whether crest was used to provide long distance communication.

B - does not concern the argument at hand and therefore irrelevant.

C - this weakens the argument as the structure of the crest may indeed be capable of producing high volume sounds if it was reinforced with cartilage

D - the fact that crest may serve multiple functions does not weaken the conclusion crest was also used to produce high pitch sounds.

E - something that could have been involved in vocalisation does not weaken the argument that crest was also involved in producing sounds.

Therefore, Option C

Mohak01

Joined: 05 Sep 2020

Last visit: 01 Apr 2026

Posts: 105

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 70

Location: India

Schools: ISB '26 NUS '26 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q83 V87 DI83 Verified score

GPA: 8

Schools: ISB '26 NUS '26 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q83 V87 DI83 Verified score

Posts: 105

Kudos: 65

03 Jul 2025, 09:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

It's a weaken the argument question.

Argument/conclusion -

"However, this hypothesis is implausible, since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound"

To weaken the above argument, anything that supports the hypothesis that crest functions to produce long distance noises will do.

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.This is actually a strengthener as it negates the hypothesis. Incorrect

(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.
This does nothing rather than just provide some additional non-relevant info. Incorrect

(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.
This provides some additional info to counter argument posed by Paleontologist that crest structure is lacks capability to produce loud noises. Correct

(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.
Like Option choice 2, this just provides some additional info which is not relevant. Incorrect

(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.
This feels more like a trap answer as it targets the premise but actually does nothing to counter the argument. The Paleontologist is arguing that the crest is incapable of producing high volume noises and not that the crest is incapable of vocalization

BeachStudy

Joined: 30 Jun 2025

Last visit: 18 Aug 2025

Posts: 61

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 61

Kudos: 37

03 Jul 2025, 09:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

effectively rebut the paleontologist’s objection:
However, this hypothesis is implausible, since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound.

A) This helps the objection
B) Neither helps nor rebut
C) Does not mention if this helps sound
D) We only care about sound
E) This shows that something else could have helped with sound

iCheetaah

Joined: 13 Nov 2021

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 81

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 81

Kudos: 72

03 Jul 2025, 09:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

Here's what the prompt is saying: This hypothesis is implausible (conclusion), since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound (premise)

Let's look at the answer choices:

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.

Whether they actually used long-distance comms or not doesn't help us weaken the argument. Eliminate

(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.

We are only concerned with this particular species of dinosaurs. Comparing them with a different kind, is not going to weaken the argument. Eliminate

(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.

This actually tells us that after fossil reconstruction, the crest was found to be stronger than it was previously believed. This directly weakens the argument that "the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound". Keep

(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.

Again, we are only interested in knowing whether or it was used for sound production and that too to exceed 100 decibels. This doesn't tell us anything. Eliminate

(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.

This choice slightly weakens the argument, by saying that there is another element that was not observed since it doesn't fossilize, that could have aided the dinosaur in vocalization. But the uncertainity of it (could have been involved) makes it a very weak candidate. Eliminate.

C seems to be the best choice.

Rakshit25

Joined: 16 Jun 2020

Last visit: 23 Mar 2026

Posts: 120

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 25

Posts: 120

Kudos: 40

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 09:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

should be E

Thinking about it, some parts of the dinosaur's vocal system may have been made of soft tissue that didn't fossilize, meaning the actual ability to produce loud sounds could have been greater than what fossil evidence alone indicates.

So this helps to weaken the argument

Bunuel

Paleontologist: Fossil evidence suggests that the crest of the dinosaur Parasaurolophus contained hollow tubes connected to its nasal passages. One researcher has proposed that the dinosaur used this crest to produce loud, resonant calls for long-distance communication. However, this hypothesis is implausible, since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound.

Which of the following, if true, would most effectively rebut the paleontologist’s objection?

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.
(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.
(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.
(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.
(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

Natansha

Joined: 13 Jun 2019

Last visit: 11 Mar 2026

Posts: 195

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 84

Posts: 195

Kudos: 65

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 09:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

The conclusion of the Paleontolgist is that the hypothesis that dinosaur used this crest to produce loud, resonant calls for long-distance communication is not possible because structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound. We have to weaken this claim by showing that it was actuallu possible to produce loud sound.

A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness: We aren't concerned with the usefulness of the long distance call. Irrelevant
(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species. Irrelevant
(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone: Even if it was more rigid, it doesn't explain if it can produce loud voice or not. Irrelevant
(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation: We aren't concerned with the functions of the crest. Irrelevant

(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus:
Exactly what we needed to show, the hypothesis of Paleontolgist is based on the fact that structure of the crest isn't capable of producing such high-volume sound. But if there are other tissues that could have existed which didn't fossilize and were involved in producing sound, high volume sound would have been possible. This weakens the Paleontolgist claim. Correct

Ans E

hakzarif

Joined: 31 May 2025

Last visit: 25 Oct 2025

Posts: 65

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 9

Products:

Posts: 65

Kudos: 29

03 Jul 2025, 09:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

The paleontologist’s objection hinges on the crest’s inability to produce calls louder than 100 decibels, dismissing the long-distance communication hypothesis. Option (A) argues that Parasaurolophus traveled in herds, implying limited need for long-range calls, which doesn’t address the crest’s sound-producing capacity. Option (B) notes that similar hollow crests appear in other herbivorous dinosaurs, but this doesn’t speak to volume or function. Option (C) suggests the crest was slightly more rigid due to cartilage reinforcement, which might improve sound production but doesn’t directly prove it could reach the necessary volume. Option (D) proposes that the crest had multiple functions, including thermoregulation, which doesn’t refute the volume limitation claim. Finally, option (E) introduces the idea that soft tissues—unpreserved in fossils—could have aided vocalization, directly challenging the paleontologist’s argument that the crest alone couldn’t produce sufficiently loud calls. Thus, only (E) effectively rebuts the core objection about sound production capability.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

FruAdey

Joined: 10 Jul 2024

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 25

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 36

Products:

Posts: 25

Kudos: 16

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 09:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion: this hypothesis is implausible

Premise : the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound

assumptions, There is not some structure missing which could have facilitated quest to produce high-volume sound
Many Parasaurolophus in groups could not have combined to produce amplified sound

going through the answer choices i will be looking at answers that match my assumptions

A and E , but A can easily be droped because the prompt mentions the plausibility of long distance communication and A goes against the prompt.

so E

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

Missinga

Joined: 20 Jan 2025

Last visit: 10 Mar 2026

Posts: 404

Own Kudos:

267

[1]

Given Kudos: 29

Posts: 404

Kudos: 267

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 09:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

Paleontologist: Fossil evidence suggests that the crest of the dinosaur Parasaurolophus contained hollow tubes connected to its nasal passages. One researcher has proposed that the dinosaur used this crest to produce loud, resonant calls for long-distance communication. However, this hypothesis is implausible, since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound.

Which of the following, if true, would most effectively rebut the paleontologist’s objection?

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness......It strengthens the objection,.........No
(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.....Irrelevant......No
(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.....it suggest crest was reinforced with cartilage and maybe that enabled it to produce loud calls..... Might be the answer
(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation......We are not asked about its other functions.......No
(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus......Maybe the soft tissue that do not fossilised helped in loud calls..... This strongly undermines the objection....... Answer
Between C and E, E is stronger

E

bart08241192

Joined: 03 Dec 2024

Last visit: 28 Dec 2025

Posts: 75

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Posts: 75

Kudos: 64

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 10:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion:
Paleontologists are calling BS on the idea that Parasaurolophus could blast out calls over 100 decibels using its bony crest.

Premise:
Fossils show the crest was a hollow tube connecting to the nasal cavity, but the bone structure doesn't seem up to the task of making such loud noises.

Assumption:
"Nothing but the shape and stiffness of the bone could significantly boost its volume."

Counter-argument:
To shut down the paleontologists' doubts, we need to point out that Parasaurolophus might have had other sound-enhancing structures inside that aren't preserved in fossils, making it louder than just the bone could.

Now, let's check the options based on our plan:
C and E both hit on our idea, but E directly tackles the sound aspect. If its nasal passages or crest had cartilage, muscle membranes, or vocal cords wrapped around, fossils wouldn't show these parts, yet they could seriously crank up the volume. This directly challenges the "only bones decide volume" assumption.

MaxFabianKirchner

Joined: 02 Jun 2025

Last visit: 12 Jul 2025

Posts: 65

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 122

Status:26' Applicant

Location: Denmark

Concentration: Finance, International Business

Schools: ESSEC MiF '26 ESADE HEC Imperial LBS Oxford MFE '26 Sloan (MIT) NYU Stern NUS Bocconi IE'26

GPA: 4.0

WE:Other (Student)

Schools: ESSEC MiF '26 ESADE HEC Imperial LBS Oxford MFE '26 Sloan (MIT) NYU Stern NUS Bocconi IE'26

Posts: 65

Kudos: 63

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 10:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

The paleontologist's argument is that the fossilized crest alone doesn't look strong enough to produce sounds over 100 decibels. The conclusion is that the dinosaur could not produce loud, long-distance calls.

The core assumption is that the fossilized bone is the only part of the vocal system that matters. To weaken the argument, we must show this assumption is likely false.

(E) states that soft-tissue structures, which do not fossilize, could have been involved in vocalization. This directly attacks the argument's foundation. If other, non-fossilized parts were part of the sound-producing system, then the fossilized crest is incomplete evidence. These soft tissues could have been what enabled the high-volume calls, making the paleontologist's objection invalid.

(A) strengthens the objection by questioning the need for loud calls. (B), (C), and (D) are irrelevant because they do not address the central issue of whether the dinosaur could produce the required volume.

The correct answer is (E).

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

kvaishvik24

Joined: 31 Mar 2025

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 81

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 81

Kudos: 65

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 10:13

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.
Irrelevant. Questions the usefulness of long-distance calls, not the ability to make them

(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.
Suggests commonality, but doesn’t show this structure could exceed 100 decibels

(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.
Shows the crest might have been stronger than bone alone but volume production depends on more than just rigidity.

(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.
Irrelevant. Even if it had other purposes, this doesn’t address whether it could generate loud calls.

(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.
This directly challenges the objection. If critical sound-producing tissues were made of soft tissue, their absence from fossils means we can’t conclude the crest alone was insufficient.

BinodBhai

Joined: 19 Feb 2025

Last visit: 15 Oct 2025

Posts: 107

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 252

Posts: 107

Kudos: 31

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 10:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

Based on some fossil evidence, a researcher proposes that the dinosaur used this crest to produce loud, resonant calls for long-distance communication. But Paleontologist claims that the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound, over 100 db.

Now we need to weaken this Paleontologist's claim..

A) It strengthens the argument.
B) Other herbivores have this crest but does that verify that they used to produce this loud sound?
C) Does rigidity offer loudness? I am not sure of this option myself.
D) OOS
E) Correct. Maybe other structures that weren't fossilized were responsible for loud calls over 100 Db. Hence the answer and this weakens the Paleontologist's claim.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

AviNFC

Joined: 31 May 2023

Last visit: 10 Apr 2026

Posts: 306

Own Kudos:

366

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 306

Kudos: 366

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 10:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness. challenges the premise
(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species. doesn't enlighten whether other species could produce loud sound.
(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone. Slightly stronger doesn't tell whether it helped in producing sound.
(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation. whether loud sound was produced is the subject here.
(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus. Correct. This soft tissues might have helped.

Ans E

MercedesF1

Joined: 31 Jul 2022

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 63

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 504

Posts: 63

Kudos: 25

03 Jul 2025, 10:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A): Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.
This doesn't weaken the objection. It talks about the potential behavior of the animal but doesn't address the crest's ability to produce loud sounds.

(B): Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.
This doesn't directly weaken the argument. It shows that similar structures exist, but it doesn't address the paleontologist’s concern about sound production.

(C): Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.
This weakens the argument. The added rigidity could help the crest produce higher-volume sounds, addressing the paleontologist's concern that the crest was not capable of producing the necessary volume.

(D): The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.
This doesn't weaken the argument. It doesn't directly address the issue of sound volume, which is the crux of the objection.

(E): Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.
This doesn't weaken the argument. It suggests alternative ways of vocalization, but doesn't help with the paleontologist's objection about the crest's sound-producing ability.

Answer C

Alice83

Joined: 24 Nov 2024

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 14

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 22

Location: France

Schools: Stanford Wharton HBS Anderson (UCLA) Booth (Chicago)

GPA: 3.2

Schools: Stanford Wharton HBS Anderson (UCLA) Booth (Chicago)

Posts: 14

Kudos: 21

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 10:44

Kudos

Bookmarks

We need to find an element to invalidate the paleontologist's hypothesis.
He claims that fossilized bone cannot produce a loud sound. The organ may not be in perfect condition today to produce a loud sound, but it was once.

After eliminating the three ABD answers, CE remains; both present this idea of bone deterioration.
However, choice C only explains the notion of bone rigidity.

Therefore, choice E seems best to me, because this evidence invalidates the paleontologist's argument: fossilized bones could be useful for long-distance communication.

HarshaBujji

Joined: 29 Jun 2020

Last visit: 05 Apr 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

906

[1]

Given Kudos: 247

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 723

Kudos: 906

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 11:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

We need to weaken the objection raised :

Objection : Researcher's proposal that the dinosaur used this crest to produce loud is not possible.

He has mentioned the reasoning as below :

Since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound.

Prethingking : If we share some info that the above reasning might be weakened will help. So alt explanation.

Lets do the POE::

A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness. So what, Irrelevant.
(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species. So what, Irrelevant.
(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone. So what, Irrelevant.
(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation. So what, Irrelevant.
(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus. Hmm this provides alternale explanition for the objection. Making his claim to be rebutted.

Hence IMO E

chasing725

Joined: 22 Jun 2025

Last visit: 13 Jan 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

173

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Location: United States (OR)

Schools: Stanford

Posts: 176

Kudos: 173

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 11:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

The conclusion of the argument is "this hypothesis is implausible". The reasoning that the author gives " since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound." We have to weaken the argument.

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.

The information is not relevant. Usefulness of the calls has nothing to do with the ability to produce them. We can eliminate this.

(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.

The information doesn't help weaken the reasoning. We can eliminate option B.

(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.

While this throws a possible reason that the cartilage could be responsible, we don't know if being rigid it could have helped produce calls more than 100 decibels. Hence, we can't that this option weakens the argument.

(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.

The information is out of scope and doesn't help weaken the argument. Eliminate D.

(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.

This information gives a reason to know how Parasaurolophus produced sounds exceeding 100 decibels. The soft tissues were responsible. The information helps believe in the possibility and weakens the conclusion.

Option E

lvillalon

Joined: 29 Jun 2025

Last visit: 25 Aug 2025

Posts: 88

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 14

Location: Chile

Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship

Schools: HEC Sept '26 INSEAD Aug '26 IMD'26 Rotterdam'26 Booth '26 Sloan '26 Kellogg '26 Anderson '26

GPA: 3,3

WE:Consulting (Consulting)

Schools: HEC Sept '26 INSEAD Aug '26 IMD'26 Rotterdam'26 Booth '26 Sloan '26 Kellogg '26 Anderson '26

Posts: 88

Kudos: 73

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 11:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Weakens the researcher, not the paleo.
B. No importance for the objection, since it's not related to decibels.
C. Rigidity ins't important for the objection.
D. Amount of functions isn't relevant for the decibels produced/necessary.
E. Makes possible to overcome the decibel limit stated by the paleo, which is his main argument. CORRECT ANSWER.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

D3N0

Joined: 21 Jan 2015

Last visit: 19 Mar 2026

Posts: 585

Own Kudos:

607

[1]

Given Kudos: 132

Location: India

Concentration: Operations, Technology

Schools: Smeal'21 (WD) Arizona State'21 (A$) Simon '21 (WD)

GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V28 Verified score

GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35 Verified score

WE:Operations (Retail: E-commerce)

Products:

Schools: Smeal'21 (WD) Arizona State'21 (A$) Simon '21 (WD)

GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35 Verified score

Posts: 585

Kudos: 607

[1]

03 Jul 2025, 11:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

Ans: E

ROSS (The Paleontologist): Fossil evidence suggests that the crest of the dinosaur Parasaurolophus contained hollow tubes connected to its nasal passages. One researcher has proposed that the dinosaur used this crest to produce loud, resonant calls for long-distance communication. However, this hypothesis is implausible, since any such call would have had to exceed 100 decibels to travel the distances proposed, and the structure of the crest does not appear capable of producing such high-volume sound.

Which of the following, if true, would most effectively rebut the paleontologist’s objection?
Means we need to find the option which either supports the researcher's proposal or provides evidence of something that weakens the objection by ROSS (The Paleontologist)

(A) Parasaurolophus likely traveled in herds, where long-distance calls may have had limited usefulness.
But the objection is regarding the decibel level to travel the distance proposed by the researcher for long-distance communication.

(B) Similar hollow-crest structures are found in many other herbivorous dinosaur species.
Similar hollow-crest are found or not is not the consideration here.

(C) Fossil reconstructions of the Parasaurolophus crest suggest it was reinforced with cartilage, making it slightly more rigid than bone alone.
rigidness of the construction is not part of the discussion unless it provides any evidence to impact either researcher's claim or Ross' objection.

(D) The crest may have served multiple functions, including both sound production and thermoregulation.
any other functionality is not the part of the argument here

(E) Soft-tissue structures that do not fossilize could have been involved in vocalization in Parasaurolophus.
If this is the case, then soft tissues, that do not fossilize, could have made crest capable of producing high-volume sound (100 decibals) this goes against Ross's claim.