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.
17 Jun 2020, 00:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
HASTOWINGMAT
Hi
Let me try to address your query. Question 5 asks us: ...if the researchers had NOT found that two extinct carnivore species were free of tooth breakage, the researchers would have concluded that:
Let us examine the relevant section of the passage that deals with this point. The second sentence of the second paragraph mentions this fact, and states:
They rejected preservational bias because a total absence of breakage in two extinct species demonstrated that the fractures were not the result of abrasion within the pits.
Hence, the absence of breakage in these two species helped the researchers to reject "preservational bias". Therefore, "...if the researchers had NOT found" this, they would have had to allow for "preservational bias".
What exactly preservational bias is is explained in the second half of the same sentence, which states: "...the fractures were not the result of abrasion within the pits."
Since this explains the rejection of preservational bias, preservational bias itself would be the complement of this ie; "...the fractures were the result of abrasion within the pits."
This fact is well laid out in option (A), which is the correct answer. Option (B) does not deal with breakage within the pits and is incorrect.
Hope this helps.
21 Jun 2020, 18:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
HASTOWINGMAT
Question 3
As a whole, the passage:
- Introduces a finding (that extinct species found in the Rancho La Brea tar pits had more tooth-breakage than modern-day species)
- ELIMINATES a bunch of potential explanations for this finding
- Discusses a plausible explanation
One of the explanations that is eliminated is "preservational bias":
- "They rejected preservational bias because a total absence of breakage in two extinct species demonstrated that the fractures were not the result of abrasion within the pits."
In other words, the researchers asked, "what if these tar pits just suck at preserving teeth? Maybe the teeth were NOT broken when the animal died, but were damaged while hanging out in the tar pits for thousands of years." This would cause "preservational bias," because the finding about tooth damage would just show that the tar pits did not preserve the teeth very well, rather than giving any insight into the behavior of the animal.
The scientists then found two species in the pit with teeth that were NOT broken at all. If the tar pits were the problem, then the teeth of ALL species would have been equally damaged by their time in the pits. Because two species had undamaged teeth, the researchers ruled out the possibility of preservational bias. Another factor must have caused the broken teeth for certain species.
Question 3 asks us what the researchers would have concluded if they had NOT found these two species without tooth breakage.
Here's (A):
Quote:
The PRESENCE of the species with unbroken teeth allowed the researchers to concluded that the tar pits didn't damage the other species' teeth. So, WITHOUT the two unbroken-teeth-species, the researchers would still be left wondering whether the tooth damage was caused by the pits themselves. (A) is looking good.
Quote:
The two species with unbroken teeth proved that the La Brea tar pits SPECIFICALLY did not cause the damage in the other species' teeth. In other words, the La Brea tar pits did not cause preservational bias.
(B) brings up a totally DIFFERENT bias -- local bias, which is discussed later in the paragraph.
Because the researchers use the two unbroken-teeth-species to rule out preservational bias, the absence of this specific evidence would call THAT factor into question. This data is NOT used to compare fossils in the tar pits to fossils in other Pleistocene sites, so the absence of the data would not lead the researchers to conclude anything about local bias.
(A) is the correct answer to question 3.
I hope that helps!
28 Aug 2020, 08:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
please help me understand 1 and 2
