GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 10 Dec 2018, 12:33

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free lesson on number properties

     December 10, 2018

     December 10, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Practice the one most important Quant section - Integer properties, and rapidly improve your skills.
  • Free GMAT Prep Hour

     December 11, 2018

     December 11, 2018

     09:00 PM EST

     10:00 PM EST

    Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. December 11 at 9 PM EST.

In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Posts: 45
Location: Mumbai
In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 10 Oct 2018, 01:16
2
1
17
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

65% (01:37) correct 35% (01:52) wrong based on 2086 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragments dating back 1 million years. Analysis of the fragments, which came from a variety of animals, showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood, the most common tree around Swartkans.

Which of the following, if true, would, together with the information above, provide the best basis for the claim that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids?


(A) The white stinkwood tree is used for building material by the present-day inhabitants of Swartkans.

(B) Forest fires can heat wood to a range of temperatures that occur in campfires.

(C) The bone fragments were fitted together by the archaeologists to form the complete skeletons of several animals.

(D) Apart from the Swartkans discovery, there is reliable evidence that early hominids used fire as many as 500 thousand years ago.

(E) The bone fragments were found in several distinct layers of limestone that contained primitive cutting tools known to have been used by early hominids.


The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 11th Edition, 2005

Practice Question
Question No.: CR 16
Page: 472

Originally posted by mistdew on 07 Aug 2003, 04:39.
Last edited by Bunuel on 10 Oct 2018, 01:16, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2012, 10:12
25
6
getgyan wrote:
I got confused between D and E. Although "E" link the tools found with the bones to early hominids, it does not explain the two inherent drawbacks:
1) Early hominids does not exactly mean those who lived a million years ago
2) How is tool related to fire

Compared to E, D is more suitable but the OA does not agree.


Dear getgyan,
I am responding to your pm
I agree this is not the best question --- in particular, it seems to requires some understanding of when "early hominids" lived or what constitutes "early hominids." It believe it's no coincidence that GMAC decided to drop this question in the move from OG12 to OG13. Nevertheless, the question has a clear answer.

Here are the facts of the argument:
We find these 1 million year old charred bone fragments. We don't know how they were charred.
The argument tells us -- simple campfires could have done the charring. OK, that's good --- that means, the charring is at least consistent with the possibility of early hominids using fire, but it's certainly not ironclad proof the the charring was done by early hominids.
By the end of the argument, we still don't know: how were the bone charred? Were they "cooked" by early hominids? Or were all those animals simply caught in a forest fire around the same time? We don't know what charred the bones, and we don't know whether humans were involved.

Now, the question: "Which of the following, if true, would, together with the information above, provide the best basis for the claim that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids?" In other words, what would help us link the involvement of early human to the charring of the bones. Let's say for simplicity we have two possible hypotheses for how the bones were charred:
(a) forest fire
(b) use of fire by early hominids
What further piece of evidence supports choosing (b) over (a)?

Choices (A), (B), and (C) are ridiculous. Choice (D) is tempting --- if early hominids controlled fire 500,000 year ago, then at least it weakly suggests that maybe they could have controlled it 1M ya. Maybe. Evidence that early hominids had adopted any technology at Time #1 is strong evidence that they knew about this technology after Time #1, but it's very hard to make the argument that they definitely know about it long before Time #1. There's half a million years between 1M ya and 500K ya, and if mastery of fire were introduced any time in that half-million year span, that would mean that we couldn't deduce use of fire 1M ya from use of fire 500K ya. Choice (D) is, at best, weak, ambiguous, wishy-washy support for the argument.

Choice (E) --- where we found the charred bone, we also found hominid tools --- aha! That is compelling evidence that the animals weren't just running wild and happened to be killed in a forest fire. It's compelling evidence that they were intentionally killed and cut up by early hominids, and therefore the charring of the bones happened when the animal remains were in the possession of the early hominids, presumably in some kind of cooking process. That strongly suggests the early hominids were able to use control and use fire. This is powerful support for interpretation (b) over interpretation (a). That's why (E) is a clear choice for the answer.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 163
Location: Hyderabad
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2005, 08:10
4
4
The answer should be E.
Reasons:

A : Irrelavant to the topic i.e. use of fire by homonids
B : This will actually waken the argument 'coz this could be a potential reason for finding of the bones
C : Though it speaks about the various animals that were formed from bones, it doesn't say if the homonids really burnt these animals for consuming or what so ever
D : Though this states that the early homonids used fire, it doesnot in any way support that the charred bones are evidnece of use of fire by early homonids. Also, there is a dispute of time. While this statement refers to a period about 500,000 years ago, the question talks about a period 1 million years ago
E : Answer : The bone fragments are found in the same strata as that of the tools used by the homonids, meaning, there is all possibility of them being used by the homonids. Since the question does not talk about the homonids, we need to find that answer which relates the homonids to the charred bones.

Comments/ Views invited.
Krishna
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2003
Posts: 30
Location: california
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2003, 18:58
2
Agree on "E"

D only indicates that the use of fire was 500,000 years ago, but the charred bones were dated back 1 million years. Thus, there is a large time gap between the two evidences.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 142
Location: India
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2003, 05:15
1
boarderlee wrote:
Agree on "E"

D only indicates that the use of fire was 500,000 years ago, but the charred bones were dated back 1 million years. Thus, there is a large time gap between the two evidences.


Okay guys, lets structure the arguments in the stimulus.

1) Charred bone fragments of animals found, dating back a million years

2) The bone fragments had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires

The question asked is, which choice best supports the claim that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids

Now E only points that bone fragments were found with cutting tools used by early hominids. This means that the hominids could have known how to use the tools, but do not support the argument that they used fire.

D supports the claim because it says that, "there is reliable evidence that early hominids used fire as many as 500 thousand years ago."

Remember, the question does not claim that early hominids used fire A MILLION YEARS AGO, but only that they used fire. Therefore, D supports the argument best.

Mistdew, whats the answer?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 454
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2012, 19:33
I got confused between D and E. Although "E" link the tools found with the bones to early hominids, it does not explain the two inherent drawbacks:
1) Early hominids does not exactly mean those who lived a million years ago
2) How is tool related to fire

Compared to E, D is more suitable but the OA does not agree.
_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3294
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2012, 02:27
2
I have to understand the situation

Here what we care about is this

Quote:
In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragments dating back 1 million years. Analysis of the fragments, which came from a variety of animals, showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood, the most common tree around Swartkans.


E show that in different layers we have the evidence that the fragments ARE the same of a campfire. So, if the fragments are the same (different place, time, heated temperature and so on......the hominidis used fire)

D only says that hominidis used fire at some date but nothing else. we DO NOT have correlation between bones and fire and the use of the latter.

Hope it is clear now :)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 454
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2012, 20:00
Hi Mike

Thanks for the explanation. :-D I have one more point of view

What if the hominids along with their pet-animals died in the forest fire and then again in subsequent fires? E will make total sense in that respect too but it will not support the use of fire by the hominids.

Thus the whole agenda boils down to prove that the charred bones were not burned in a forest fire.

If we look at the stem, it states that "temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood" which implies that only the branches were burned whereas in a forest fire the whole tree(branch+stem) would burn. Also the temperature produced would be different in a forest fire because of the presence of other kinds of trees. Are my assumptions correct?
_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2012, 13:04
4
getgyan wrote:
Hi Mike

Thanks for the explanation. :-D I have one more point of view

What if the hominids along with their pet-animals died in the forest fire and then again in subsequent fires? E will make total sense in that respect too but it will not support the use of fire by the hominids.

Thus the whole agenda boils down to prove that the charred bones were not burned in a forest fire.

If we look at the stem, it states that "temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood" which implies that only the branches were burned whereas in a forest fire the whole tree(branch+stem) would burn. Also the temperature produced would be different in a forest fire because of the presence of other kinds of trees. Are my assumptions correct?


Dear Getgyan

Part of the problem here is --- you are digging extra-deep into a question that is of questionable quality. Remember, this is one of the questions the OG decided to jettison.

First of all, the idea of "pets" I believe is not 1M ya, but something more recent in human history. Even herding of animals was a relatively recent innovation, compared to the earlier hunting and gathering societies that existed during most of humanid evolution. More to the point, if humans & animals died together, they would have found charred human bones along with the charred animals bones --- that would be too important a finding to omit from the description. In other words, if they found charred human & animals bones, and said only "charred animals bones were found", that omission would constitute a level of pure deceit that you simply are not going to find in GMAT CR passages.

Look at this statement "Analysis of the fragments ... showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stinkwood." What this says is: there is some ceiling temperature T, and the bones never got hotter than that. As it happens, T is also the temperature at which stinkwood campfires would burn. We know nothing else. We don't know if T is 800 K or 5000 K. We don't know whether stinkwood is the coolest burning or hottest burning wood in the forest. If there were a forest fire --- of course, a forest fire is a big thing, and it has a middle and an edge. How does the temperature at the middle compare to T? How does the temperature at the edge compare to T? Presumably, at any forest fire, there are some animals who die in the center, and their bones are just incinerated to ash, but there are also some on the periphery, maybe which die largely of asphyxiation, whose bones might just be charred but not incinerated. ----- In short, there is a lot we don't know about this statement and its potential implications. Other than establishing a plausible link between the charred bones and stinkwood campfires, we can't necessarily use it to prove or disprove anything else.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 873
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2013, 02:55
what is an assumption for this argument.?

pls help.
the argument is

from chared bone---------> person use fire

what is assumption here? pls do not say more, pls, just tell me an assumption. nothing more.

after getting an assumption, I will continue to post a question
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2013, 10:29
1
thangvietnam wrote:
what is an assumption for this argument.?
pls help.
the argument is
from charred bone---------> person use fire
what is assumption here? pls do not say more, pls, just tell me an assumption. nothing more.
after getting an assumption, I will continue to post a question

Dear thangvietnam,
With all due respect, you are asking the wrong question. It's as if the question were "find the area of the circle", and you are asking how many vertices the shape has. What you are asking is a question that doesn't really make sense in context.

You see, the prompt here is really just a set of evidence --- there's not really an "argument" in the prompt paragraph, just evidence. The conclusion is actually not in the prompt paragraph at all but in the question, and you need another piece of evidence (from among the answer choices) to establish this conclusion. You can't really even begin to identify an assumption until after you pick the correct answer, so trying to start the question by identifying an assumption is a strategy doomed to failure.

Yes, I know that "identify the assumption" is an approach that works in a large number of CR, but on the GMAT, you can never afford to be a one-trick pony --- there's no "one size fits all" strategy that you can use on every single question. The GMAT will give you enough variety that you have to be flexible and resourceful in how you approach the problems.

Does that make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 873
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jan 2013, 08:12
Dear Mike

you are correct that for many types of question, starting a question by identifying an assumption works well.

but for this type of question what do you do after you read the argument and the question? you have to know what you will find in the answer choices before you read and analyse answer choices.

what is your goal in reading the answer choices. ? pls detail your thinking process.

Thank you Mike.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jan 2013, 10:55
2
thangvietnam wrote:
Dear Mike
you are correct that for many types of question, starting a question by identifying an assumption works well.
but for this type of question what do you do after you read the argument and the question? you have to know what you will find in the answer choices before you read and analyse answer choices.
what is your goal in reading the answer choices. ? pls detail your thinking process.
Thank you Mike.

Dear thangvietnam
First of all, your statement "you have to know what you will find in the answer choices before you read and analyse answer choices" is FALSE in general. In the very specific cases of "find the assumption" or "strengthen/weaken the question", then yes, it's good to identify the assumption before you read the answer choices. For those three specific CR question types, your statement is true. In other CR question types, especially unusually ones like this, we have absolutely no way to anticipate how the answer choices will impact the logic of the argument, and hence there is no way to avoid reading and analyzing each answer choices.

See this article about different CR question types:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/save-time- ... questions/

Remember, if you try to approach the GMAT CR with recipes and formulas, the GMAT will obliterate you. On the CR, the GMAT demands flexible critical reasoning.

I have already written quite a bit about this argument in the posts above, so I am not going to go through a full analysis here. The procedures, briefly, would be --- for each answer choice, read the choice, and then evaluate whether this choice, in conjunction with the evidence in the prompt paragraph, supports the claim "that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids." Let me know if you have any specific questions about answer choices that I have not already discussed above.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 873
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2013, 06:28
thank you Mike
I read the articles already.

there is no strategy for this type of argument. this is strengthen/weaken question but this question dose not require prethink an assumption.

what we do after we read/understand argurment and before we read/analyse the answer choices, for this type of question. ?

"look for what increase the belief that the 2 pieces of evidence are related"

is what we need to know before going to answer choices.

is that right?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2013, 11:46
1
thangvietnam wrote:
thank you Mike
I read the articles already.
there is no strategy for this type of argument. this is strengthen/weaken question but this question dose not require prethink an assumption.
what we do after we read/understand argument and before we read/analyse the answer choices, for this type of question. ?
"look for what increase the belief that the 2 pieces of evidence are related"
is what we need to know before going to answer choices.
is that right?

Yes. You see, the GMAT excels at producing question that demand flexible logical reasoning. You absolutely cannot afford to get stuck in a rut, applying the same routine to each question. Instead, many GMAT CR questions demand something entirely new, analysis unlike that demanded by any previous question. This question is an example of such a question. It is not a "question type." It is an out-of-the-blue question all of its own, and you have to engage deeply with the logic of the situation itself. Many questions on the CR, both in the OG and on the real GMAT, will be just like this. Yes, there are a few "types", like "find the assumption", where you definitely can do some "pre-thinking" before you look at the answer choices. Nevertheless, do not get attached to that luxury. Many questions ask you to engage the logic-in-context of the situation, and there's no recipe/procedure/method that will save you from this deep and contextual logical reasoning.

Here's a post that discusses this a little more.
Formal Logic and GMAT CR

Do you know the magazine entitled The Economist? I would highly recommend this magazine, both for the tremendous overview of world political and economic issues it provides, and for high level of language, rhetoric, and argument is maintains. See this post:
Reading for the GMAT: The Economist
If you read the argument in that magazine--you will be reading messy real world arguments, arguments that are inextricable bound to what is unique to each situation. You cannot use recipes or formulas to understand these arguments. You need to understand context itself. Reading The Economist magazine would give you excellent preparation for the wild diversity of possible arguments in the GMAT CR.

Think about it. The whole point of the CR section on the GMAT, the reason business schools consider this an important topic, is that in the business world you will face new situations and new arguments and new issues all the time. The folks who respond to a new situation or argument with formulaic methods will not get everything out of the situation that he could. By contrast, the person who recognizes the unique logic of each new context --- the person will be on the cutting edge, always poised to draw profit from each new challenge.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 438
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2013, 13:33
1
A) can be eliminated

B) this answer choice, if true, would weaken the claim that the charred bone fragments are an evidence of the use of fire by the early hominids. Because, it is giving an alternative explanation (charred bone fragments could have been the result of a forest fire rather than of the use of fire by early hominids).

C) we already know from the text that these charred bone fragments come from a variety of animals. can be eliminated.

D) this choice does not answer the question whether early hominids used fire 1 million years ago or not.

E) the only possible solution.
We already know from the text that these charred bones came from animals. we also know that they were heated to high temperatures and most probably branches of trees in question had been used.
We only have to find the agents of the action. And only E gives the best choice.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Posts: 7
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2014, 03:42
In Swartkans territory archaeologists discovered charred bone fragments dating back 1 million years. Analysis of fragments, which came from a variety of animals, showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higher than those produced in experimental campfiresmade from branches of white stinkwood, the most common tree around swartkans.

Which of the foll, if true, would, together with the info above, provide the best basis for the claim that the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids?

a. The white stinkwood tree is used for building material by present-day inhabitants of swartkans
b. Forest fires can heat wood to a range of temeratures that occur in campfires
c. The bone fragments were fitted together by the archaeologists to form the complete skeleton of diff, animals
d. Apart from the Swartkans discovery, there is reliable evidence that early hominids used fire as many as 500,000 years ago
e. The bone fragments were found in several distict layers of limestone that contained primitive cutting tools known to have been used by early hominids


My Answer:
The question is an evaluate/strenghten question type: what specific info do we need to say that the bones are a sign of the presence of early hominids.

A- WRONG - The building habbits of present day inhabitants doesn't provide info about hominids 1 million years ago.
B- WRONG - This fact provide evidence against the proposition as it says that some natural disaster as forest fire could have provided the condition cited in the premise. This statement weakens the conclusion.
C- WRONG - This fact doesn't provide any useful information, a forest fire or early hominids killing or cooking entire animals would both leads to complete skeleton findings.
D- WRONG - Whether hominids used fire as many as 500 000 years ago is not relevant as we are interested about hominids 1 million years ago. Fire could have been discovered 750 000 years ago.
E- Correct Answer - This statement give further hints about the presence of early hominids as the cause of the bone findings, which is just enough to end up with the conclusion.

Hope it helps,
if yes Kudos are welcome.
Cheers
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3503
Premium Member
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2018, 01:17
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen &nbs [#permalink] 10 Oct 2018, 01:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmen

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron
Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.