Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 23:00 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 23:00
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3 
555-605 Level|   Long Passage|   Social Science|               
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
130
Given Kudos: 5,193
Location: India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 534
Kudos: 130
Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida 25 May 2025, 00:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja

I read your explanation and understood what you are saying but I still have a doubt why option B is wrong.

(B) introduce empirical data supporting a position

My reasoning:
The author's position is: it is more likely that status led to height differentials.
And his evidence is: a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups.

Can't we say that the author used yellow highlighted lines in order to support his position by introducing an empirical evidence?

Please let me know where I am faltering here in my reasoning.

Also, I have two additional questions:

1. Does "a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature...." contain "empirical evidence" or just a hypothetical possibility?

2. If we had a quantifiable empirical evidence in the line "a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature...", then my reasoning would have been correct?


Tagging other experts KarishmaB DmitryFarber GMATNinjaTwo


GMATNinja
hazelnutHi GMATNinja, Could you help with Question 2?

In the highlighted text (it is possible that taller people were simply more successful in achieving high social standing), the author of the passage raises the possibility that taller people achieved greater success most probably in order to

(A) suggest that two explanations for a phenomenon are equally plausible
(B) introduce empirical data supporting a position
(C) anticipate an objection to an argument
(D) question the usefulness of relying solely on physical evidence
(E) point out a weakness in a traditional argument

The evidence suggests that taller people, in general, had higher status. The author wants to argue that height was a function of status (the higher your status, the taller you would be, on average). Why? Because "a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups."

Someone might challenge that theory by saying, "Well, maybe status is a function of height!" Maybe being tall improves your odds of reaching a higher status (reversing the cause and effect presented by the author). The author anticipates this objection, saying that this reversed explanation might be true but that his/her argument "is more likely."

Choice (C) is the best answer.
Show more
User avatar
rak08
User avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 236
Own Kudos:
21
 [1]
Given Kudos: 338
Location: India
Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 7.14
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26
Posts: 236
Kudos: 21
 [1]
Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida 04 Jun 2025, 19:49
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A reasonable way to figure out "game's" context here (which ate up quite some time for me to select the right option) is
Very low concentrations of vanadium, which is scarce in meats and somewhat lower in nuts than in other plant resources, are good evidence of meat consumption and thus a better balanced-diet.
so from here you derive : they talk about meat, "other plant resources" & nuts.
correlate it with the 2 categories given : we have agri crops (obv cant include meat), wild edible plants + nuts ( cannot include meat). The only category left at this point is "game" which can mean meat.

another way to re-confirm this is, "hunt / harvest" given in the first 2 lines. so hunting is a game and hence reconfirms the idea.
felippemed
Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida, a Native American people, the best from the hunt or the harvest was given to families of high social status, even in times of economic stress. Archaeological research suggests a similar relationship between social status and diet in the Dallas communities of eastern Tennessee, prehistoric Native American groups with a social organization and economy similar to that of the Timucua. The first real clue came when archaeologists discovered that skeletons of higher-status individuals tended to be several centimeters taller than those of people of lower status.

In the largest Dallas communities, some individuals were buried in the earthen mounds that served as substructures for buildings important to civic and religious affairs. These burials included quantities of finely crafted items made of nonlocal material, denoting the high political standing of those interred. Burials of lower-status individuals contained primarily utilitarian items such as cooking vessels and chipped Stone tools and are located in more remote sections of the settlements. The burials actually formed a pattern, the tallest skeletons being found in the mounds, and the heights declining as burials became more distant from the mounds. While it is possible that taller people were simply more successful in achieving high social standing, it is more likely that a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups.

Excavations indicate that three food categories made up the bulk of the population's diet: agricultural crops cultivated in the fertile alluvial soils where the communities were located, game, and wild edible plants, primarily nuts. Information about dietary variation among community members is derived by analyzing trace elements in human bone. Higher than normal levels of manganese, strontium, and vanadium probably indicate a less nutritious diet heavily dependent on edible plants. Very low concentrations of vanadium, which is scarce in meats and somewhat lower in nuts than in other plant resources, are good evidence of meat consumption and thus a better balanced-diet. As expected, vanadium was found in considerably greater quantities in skeletons in the burials of lower-status groups.

1. According to the passage, which of the following statements regarding earthen mounds in the Dallas communities is accurate?

(A) They served primarily as burial grounds.
(B) They were constructed in key locations on the perimeter of the village.
(C) They were elements in important structures in the community.
(D) They were used as storehouses for keeping valuable possessions safe.
(E) They contained utilitarian items made of nonlocal materials.



2. In the highlighted text (it is possible that taller people were simply more successful in achieving high social standing), the author of the passage raises the possibility that taller people achieved greater success most probably in order to

(A) suggest that two explanations for a phenomenon are equally plausible
(B) introduce empirical data supporting a position
(C) anticipate an objection to an argument
(D) question the usefulness of relying solely on physical evidence
(E) point out a weakness in a traditional argument



3. The passage suggests that the "relationship" mentioned in the highlighted text was initially recognized when archaeologists

(A) attempted to trace the ancestry of the Timucua of Florida
(B) discovered a height differential among members of subgroups in the Dallas community
(C) realized that the Dallas communities endured periods of nutritional deprivation
(D) began to compare the social organization and economies of the Timucua with that of the Dallas communities
(E) became curious about differences in trace elements found in the bones of Dallas community members



4. The passage suggests which of the following about the diet of the Dallas communities?

(A) Wild edible plants were a relatively minor element in the diet.
(B) Game was less likely to be available to lower-status individuals than were edible plants.
(C) The diet was composed primarily of agricultural crops when game was scarce.
(D) The diet was obtained entirely from local food sources.
(E) The diet was well balanced, especially at harvest time.

Show more
User avatar
rak08
User avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 236
Own Kudos:
21
 [1]
Given Kudos: 338
Location: India
Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 7.14
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26
Posts: 236
Kudos: 21
 [1]
Historical documents have revealed that among the Timucua of Florida 04 Jun 2025, 19:55
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
"which could affect" had it have been an evidence shouldn't it have been more assertive, its not conclusive from this whether its the diet OR hustling stress OR family stress xyz can't define.
So it sounds more like a hypothesis / a guessing attribute.
also do see that there is a contrast word used which indicated that hey this xyz thing is there i know you will come up with this so im telling you this isnt a correct way to think.

SO we can conclude that author "anticipated" the argument.
agrasan
Hi GMATNinja

I read your explanation and understood what you are saying but I still have a doubt why option B is wrong.

(B) introduce empirical data supporting a position

My reasoning:
The author's position is: it is more likely that status led to height differentials.
And his evidence is: a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups.

Can't we say that the author used yellow highlighted lines in order to support his position by introducing an empirical evidence?

Please let me know where I am faltering here in my reasoning.

Also, I have two additional questions:

1. Does "a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature...." contain "empirical evidence" or just a hypothetical possibility?

2. If we had a quantifiable empirical evidence in the line "a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature...", then my reasoning would have been correct?


Tagging other experts KarishmaB DmitryFarber GMATNinjaTwo


GMATNinja
hazelnutHi GMATNinja, Could you help with Question 2?

In the highlighted text (it is possible that taller people were simply more successful in achieving high social standing), the author of the passage raises the possibility that taller people achieved greater success most probably in order to

(A) suggest that two explanations for a phenomenon are equally plausible
(B) introduce empirical data supporting a position
(C) anticipate an objection to an argument
(D) question the usefulness of relying solely on physical evidence
(E) point out a weakness in a traditional argument

The evidence suggests that taller people, in general, had higher status. The author wants to argue that height was a function of status (the higher your status, the taller you would be, on average). Why? Because "a number of stresses, including those resulting from a relatively poor diet, which could affect stature, were common among the lower-status groups."

Someone might challenge that theory by saying, "Well, maybe status is a function of height!" Maybe being tall improves your odds of reaching a higher status (reversing the cause and effect presented by the author). The author anticipates this objection, saying that this reversed explanation might be true but that his/her argument "is more likely."

Choice (C) is the best answer.
Show more
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
17289 posts
miag
188 posts