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.
Apr 1612:00 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 2610:00 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 2711:00 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 2808:00 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.
AA155
Joined: 18 Apr 2025
Last visit: 20 Apr 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.
