It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting

Choice C also has another flaw. It uses the word "immediate". This contradicts what the passage says "...delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years."

Posted from my mobile device

IMO - C is correct because if animals that hunters sought after came immediately after the fire, this would contradict the hypothesis that they had delayed gratification.

­Explanation

It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area in Country X tens of thousands of years ago repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area. Archaeologists hypothesize that because the fires caused later plant growth on the land, the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species. Such actions, they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

Archeologists have concluded the following:

Such actions (people occupying the Bax Cave area in Country X tens of thousands of years ago repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area), they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

That conclusion is supported by the following intermediate conclusion or hypothesis:

the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species

We see that archeologist have seen that the people set fires, hypothesized regarding why they set the fires, and arrived at a conclusion based on the hypothesis.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists’ claim?

A yes answer or no answer to the question presented by the correct answer will strenghen or weaken the case for the final conclusion.

It can do so by strenghtening or weakening the support for the main conclusion or the support for the intermediate conclusion, the hypothesis.

A. Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes

Regardless of whether the area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes, the passage says, "It is known ... that the hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area ... repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area."

So, it appears that the hunting people set fires regardless of whether all fires in the area were set by them.

Thus, what we know about the situation is not materially changed by a yes or no answer to this question.

Eliminate.

B. Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave

Regardless of whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave, the people discussed in the passage are "hunting people."

So, presumably, they did hunt.

In other words, the argument is not about whether they hunted. It's about what they did to optimize conditions for hunting. So, evidence indicating that they hunted would not help to support the conclusion.

Eliminate.

C. Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters

A yes or no answer to this question could weaken or strenghten the case for the hypothesis that "the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species."

After all, if the answer to this question is "Yes," then we have a possible alternative reason why they set the fires. It could be that they set the fires to drive prey out to attract other animals they sought. So, a yes answer weakens the case for the conclusion by indicating that something else could have been going on and thus casting doubt on the hypothesis that supports the main conclusion.

On the other hand, a no answer strengthens the case for the conclusion by serving to rule out a possible alternative reason for their setting fires. In other words, a no answer to this question serves to increase the probability that the hypothesis that the hunters set the fires to attract herbivorous prey species is correct and thus strengthens the argument.

Keep.

D. Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies

This choice is a little hard to eliminate since a yes answer to this question could seem to indicate that there may have been an alternative reason why the people occupying the Bax Cave area set the fires. Maybe they set them to get plants adapted to fire ecologies to grow.

However, (C) is a much better answer, and we can eliminate this choice because simple fact that they consumed such plants doesn't mean that they set fires to get such plants to grow. 

In other words, if we think about this choice, we can see that the people could have consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies along with other plants. This choice doesn't ask whether they "preferred" to consume such plants or "needed" such plants. It's simply about whether they consumed the plants.

What if they did? Does that information mean that they set fires to get such plants to grow? Not really. All it means is that they ate plants that grew in areas where fire occurred. That information doesn't clearly indicate anything about planning or delaying gratification.

Eliminate.

E. Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago

Neither a yes nor a no answer to this question would materially strengthen or weaken the argument since the conclusion is about the people occupying the Bax Cave area.

Honestly, in a context other than a GMAT question we might take a yes answer to this question as evidence that people of that time in general had the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years and thus that the people occupying the Bax Cave area likely did too. At the same time, since we know that we're dealing with a GMAT question, we can make the call that a choice that involves such indirect and weak support isn't going to be the correct answer.

Eliminate.

Correct answer: C­

­I received a DM requesting that I comment.

Premise:
The hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area.
Conclusion:
Such actions are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

Assumption:
The purpose of the fires was LATER PLANT GROWTH and the subsequent attraction of herbivores and that there is thus a link between FIRE-SETTING and DELAYED GRATIFICATION.

This is an EVALUATE CR.
The answer choices to this type of CR often begin with the word whether.
To make the situation clearer, omit this word when reading the answer choices.
With the word whether omitted, the correct answer choice will either strengthen or weaken the conclusion, enabling us to EVALUATE whether the conclusion is valid.

C, with the word whether omitted:
In the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey.
Implication:
The purpose of the fires was not LATER plant growth but the IMMEDIATE attraction of animals coming to seek prey, weakening the conclusion that the hunters had the mental capacity to delay gratification.


 ­­­­­­

Argument Breakdown:
Fact: Hunters in the Bax Cave area set fires repeatedly tens of thousands of years ago.

Hypothesis by Archaeologists: The fires were intentionally set to encourage plant growth, which would attract herbivorous animals. This implies that the hunters were thinking ahead and planning for the future.

Claim: The archaeologists argue that this behavior shows the mental capacity to delay gratification—i.e., they were willing to wait weeks, months, or even years for the payoff (herbivores attracted by the new plant growth).

Goal:
The goal is to find the answer choice that would most help in evaluating whether the archaeologists' claim about delayed gratification is valid.

Key Points to Focus On:

Delayed Gratification: The hunters supposedly set the fires with the long-term goal of attracting herbivores after new plant growth occurred.

Immediate vs. Delayed Benefit: For the archaeologists' claim to hold, the hunters must have been willing to wait for the plants to grow and attract herbivores. If there were immediate benefits from the fire, this could challenge the claim of delayed gratification.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

(A) Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes.

Relevance: This is about whether fires could start naturally (due to lightning). But the archaeologists' claim is about intentional fire-setting, not accidental fires. Knowing about lightning doesn’t help evaluate the claim about deliberate actions for delayed benefits.
Not useful for evaluating the claim.

(B) Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave.

Relevance: This is about the presence of tools, but the claim we need to evaluate is about the purpose of setting fires and whether this demonstrates delayed gratification. Finding tools doesn’t address the issue of mental capacity for planning.
Not useful for evaluating the claim.

(C) Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters.

Relevance: This is directly relevant to the idea of delayed gratification. If animals were driven out of their shelters immediately after the fires, the hunters might have had a short-term benefit rather than needing to wait for plant growth to attract herbivores. This would weaken the archaeologists' claim that the hunters were demonstrating the ability to plan for future rewards.
Very useful for evaluating the claim because if there was an immediate benefit (prey driven out immediately after the fire), it would suggest that the hunters did not need to delay gratification.

(D) Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies.

Relevance: This discusses what the people might have eaten, but it doesn’t directly address the issue of whether the hunters were setting fires for the purpose of attracting prey in the long term. It’s more about plant consumption than hunting strategies.
Not useful for evaluating the claim.
(E) Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago.

Relevance: This addresses the broader question of whether other people from the same time period could delay gratification, but it doesn’t specifically help evaluate whether these hunters in the Bax Cave area were doing so. The archaeologists' claim is specific to this group, not others.
Not as useful for evaluating the specific claim.

Conclusion:
The correct answer is (C) because it directly addresses whether the hunters might have had immediate benefits from setting fires, which would challenge the idea that they were demonstrating the mental capacity to delay gratification. If the hunters could get prey immediately after the fire, then their actions would not necessarily demonstrate planning for the future or delaying gratification. Therefore, (C) is the most useful piece of information for evaluating the archaeologists' claim.

Posted from my mobile device

Is the reasoning for C based on the fact that we are looking for evidence to EVALUATE the claim and support it?? because if it was infact to support then C makes no sense in the fact that there is no Delay in gratification.

GMATNinja Bunuel GMATGuruNY Can you please explain this question

Posted from my mobile device

­I agree , or does 'Herbivore Prey species' mean carnivore

­While it is KNOWN that the Bax Cave people repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area, archaeologists only HYPOTHESIZE that the purpose was to attract herbivorous prey species.
A hypothesis is not a fact but a GUESS.
Option C suggests that this guess might be wrong: that the purpose of the fires was to attract a DIFFERENT type of animal -- the type would come to seek prey driven out of dens and shelters.­