Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
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.
