Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 06:18 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 06:18 |
|
|
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 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
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 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
AA155
Joined: 18 Apr 2025
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3
Location: India
Schools: HEC INSEAD Jan '27 Rotterdam'26 LBS '27 FT MBA '27
GPA: 6
Products:
03 Jul 2025, 21:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
The paleontologist's view is based on the fossil remains of the crest. Option E serves the best answer since it is enough to cast a doubt on the findings.
Bunuel
03 Jul 2025, 21:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
Prethink - There was something else which could have made the long distance sound possible. Looking at all the options only option E supports that.
Hence E.
Prethink - There was something else which could have made the long distance sound possible. Looking at all the options only option E supports that.
Hence E.
03 Jul 2025, 21:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
the paleontologist's objection is based on the idea that the crest structure alone doesn't seem capable of producing sounds louder than 100 decibels, which is necessary for the communication hypothesis to hold. in short, they argue the physical fossil evidence doesn't support the necessary loudness.
to rebut this, we need something that challenges that limitation — for example, suggesting there's more to the sound-production mechanism than just the bony crest.
option a says long-distance calls may not have been useful. that doesn't address the objection. if anything, it weakens the original communication hypothesis rather than rebutting the volume objection. eliminate.
option b talks about other species having similar structures. that may support the idea that the crest had a purpose, but it doesn't address whether parasaurolophus could produce sounds over 100 decibels. eliminate.
option c says the crest was reinforced with cartilage. this could make it a little more rigid, but doesn't directly address whether it could produce high-volume sound. “slightly more rigid” isn’t enough to rebut the claim. eliminate.
option d suggests the crest had multiple functions. that neither supports nor weakens the objection. the paleontologist is focused on the **plausibility of sound production**, not whether the crest had other uses. eliminate.
option e says that soft-tissue structures, which don’t fossilize, **could** have contributed to vocalization. this is strong — if true, the fossil evidence alone (which shows only bone structure) may not be sufficient to judge sound-producing capability. this directly challenges the paleontologist’s argument, which relies only on fossilized structures.
answer is e. as it introduces the possibility that non-fossilized tissues were part of the sound system, making the volume argument based only on the crest incomplete.
to rebut this, we need something that challenges that limitation — for example, suggesting there's more to the sound-production mechanism than just the bony crest.
option a says long-distance calls may not have been useful. that doesn't address the objection. if anything, it weakens the original communication hypothesis rather than rebutting the volume objection. eliminate.
option b talks about other species having similar structures. that may support the idea that the crest had a purpose, but it doesn't address whether parasaurolophus could produce sounds over 100 decibels. eliminate.
option c says the crest was reinforced with cartilage. this could make it a little more rigid, but doesn't directly address whether it could produce high-volume sound. “slightly more rigid” isn’t enough to rebut the claim. eliminate.
option d suggests the crest had multiple functions. that neither supports nor weakens the objection. the paleontologist is focused on the **plausibility of sound production**, not whether the crest had other uses. eliminate.
option e says that soft-tissue structures, which don’t fossilize, **could** have contributed to vocalization. this is strong — if true, the fossil evidence alone (which shows only bone structure) may not be sufficient to judge sound-producing capability. this directly challenges the paleontologist’s argument, which relies only on fossilized structures.
answer is e. as it introduces the possibility that non-fossilized tissues were part of the sound system, making the volume argument based only on the crest incomplete.
03 Jul 2025, 21:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Option E would be a more direct attack as it is a possiblity that the fossil did not preseve the other part which is responsible for the loud sound produced. Option A says that calls had limited usefulness so that would attack the original idea and not the objection presented.
Option B not attacks any point because even if other species had similar structures that would not negate the statement.
Similar with option C and D
Option B not attacks any point because even if other species had similar structures that would not negate the statement.
Similar with option C and D
Bunuel
