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 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.
28 Dec 2025, 09:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official answer for question 1
This question refers to the first paragraph, which states that Walker does not agree with
Szalay’s idea that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaptation to bone
crunching.
A. According to the passage, Walker and Szalay disagree about the function of heavy enamel
on the teeth, not the structure and composition of the teeth.
B. The passage does not indicate that Szalay has anything to say about the micro-wear
patterns on the teeth.
C. Walker does, according to the passage, believe that australopithecines ate fruit, but it
gives no evidence about whether Szalay believes that they ate at least some fruit.
D. According to the passage, Walker believes that seed cracking and bone crunching
produce distinctive micro-wear patterns on teeth, but he does not necessarily believe that
they are similar. The passage does not indicate Szalay’s position on the difference
between micro-wear patterns.
E. Correct. The function of the heavy enamel on the teeth is th
This question refers to the first paragraph, which states that Walker does not agree with
Szalay’s idea that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaptation to bone
crunching.
A. According to the passage, Walker and Szalay disagree about the function of heavy enamel
on the teeth, not the structure and composition of the teeth.
B. The passage does not indicate that Szalay has anything to say about the micro-wear
patterns on the teeth.
C. Walker does, according to the passage, believe that australopithecines ate fruit, but it
gives no evidence about whether Szalay believes that they ate at least some fruit.
D. According to the passage, Walker believes that seed cracking and bone crunching
produce distinctive micro-wear patterns on teeth, but he does not necessarily believe that
they are similar. The passage does not indicate Szalay’s position on the difference
between micro-wear patterns.
E. Correct. The function of the heavy enamel on the teeth is th
28 Dec 2025, 10:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja, KarishmaB, egmat
I am having difficulty understanding Question 6:
It can be inferred from the passage that Walker's conclusion about the australopithecine diet would be called into question under which of the following circumstances
I selected Option E, but I would like help understanding why my reasoning may be wrong.
Here is how I thought through each option:
(A) The tooth enamel of australopithecines is found to be much heavier than that of modern frugivorous primates.
I rejected this because the passage already states that australopithecines had heavy enamel, and Walker is not using enamel to support his conclusion, he is using micro-wear patterns. So enamel thickness should not undermine his conclusion. Reject
(B) The micro-wear patterns of australopithecine teeth from regions other than east Africa are analyzed.
I thought this might be relevant because the passage states that if australopithecines were omnivores, we would expect variation in tooth micro-wear across different populations depending on their environments. That suggests looking at other regions could be important. So keep for now.
(C) Orangutans are found to have a much broader diet than is currently recognized.
I originally rejected this because the passage says chimpanzees and orangutans are frugivores. Later I realized it says they are "commonly assumed" to be frugivores, not definitively known to be so. However, during the test I did not notice this word, which raises another concern: how am I supposed to retain small qualifiers like "assumed" while reading under time pressure? Also, this question is testing the knowledge of whole passage and not just one sentence. So I cannot for each option given the time pressure keep going to relevant portion in the passage. I agree going ahead learning is to focus on word assumed but how much I will be able to implement is still a question mark.
(D) The environment of east Africa at the time australopithecines lived there is found to have been far more varied than is currently thought.
I interpreted this as implying a wider range of food types, possibly including soft-bodied insects. Since the passage says that soft-bodied insects do not leave much tooth wear, this could mean micro-wear patterns might not accurately reflect diet So keep for now
(E) The area in which the australopithecine specimens were found is discovered to have been very rich in soft-bodied insects during the period when australopithecines lived there.
This seemed to directly support the idea that micro-wear would not show what they actually ate, because soft-bodied insects do not cause much tooth abrasion. This directly challenges Walker's reliance on micro-wear, so I chose this option. Also, this was my inference from the option D which is directly stated here. So given time I quickly chose E and went ahead.
Could you please explain where my reasoning went wrong, especially with respect to why Option E is correct (or not), and how I should approach inference questions like this on the exam without needing to remember every small detail?
I am having difficulty understanding Question 6:
It can be inferred from the passage that Walker's conclusion about the australopithecine diet would be called into question under which of the following circumstances
I selected Option E, but I would like help understanding why my reasoning may be wrong.
Here is how I thought through each option:
(A) The tooth enamel of australopithecines is found to be much heavier than that of modern frugivorous primates.
I rejected this because the passage already states that australopithecines had heavy enamel, and Walker is not using enamel to support his conclusion, he is using micro-wear patterns. So enamel thickness should not undermine his conclusion. Reject
(B) The micro-wear patterns of australopithecine teeth from regions other than east Africa are analyzed.
I thought this might be relevant because the passage states that if australopithecines were omnivores, we would expect variation in tooth micro-wear across different populations depending on their environments. That suggests looking at other regions could be important. So keep for now.
(C) Orangutans are found to have a much broader diet than is currently recognized.
I originally rejected this because the passage says chimpanzees and orangutans are frugivores. Later I realized it says they are "commonly assumed" to be frugivores, not definitively known to be so. However, during the test I did not notice this word, which raises another concern: how am I supposed to retain small qualifiers like "assumed" while reading under time pressure? Also, this question is testing the knowledge of whole passage and not just one sentence. So I cannot for each option given the time pressure keep going to relevant portion in the passage. I agree going ahead learning is to focus on word assumed but how much I will be able to implement is still a question mark.
(D) The environment of east Africa at the time australopithecines lived there is found to have been far more varied than is currently thought.
I interpreted this as implying a wider range of food types, possibly including soft-bodied insects. Since the passage says that soft-bodied insects do not leave much tooth wear, this could mean micro-wear patterns might not accurately reflect diet So keep for now
(E) The area in which the australopithecine specimens were found is discovered to have been very rich in soft-bodied insects during the period when australopithecines lived there.
This seemed to directly support the idea that micro-wear would not show what they actually ate, because soft-bodied insects do not cause much tooth abrasion. This directly challenges Walker's reliance on micro-wear, so I chose this option. Also, this was my inference from the option D which is directly stated here. So given time I quickly chose E and went ahead.
Could you please explain where my reasoning went wrong, especially with respect to why Option E is correct (or not), and how I should approach inference questions like this on the exam without needing to remember every small detail?
29 Dec 2025, 02:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Walker's Argument Chain:
1. Australopithecine micro-wear = Chimp/Orangutan micro-wear
2. Chimps/Orangutans are frugivores
3. Therefore, australopithecines were frugivores
Where Your Reasoning Went Wrong:
You focused on: "Can micro-wear detect everything they ate?"
But the question asks: "What would call Walker's CONCLUSION into question?"
Why Option E Fails:
Even if australopithecines ate soft insects (which leave no micro-wear), their teeth would still look like orangutan teeth. Walker's comparison would still hold. He might be incomplete, but not wrong.
Why Option C Works:
Walker's logic depends on orangutans being frugivores. The passage says they are "commonly assumed" to be frugivores - not proven.
If orangutans actually have a "much broader diet" → they're omnivores, not frugivores → matching their micro-wear proves nothing about being a frugivore → Walker's entire comparison collapses.
The Key Distinction:
- Option E: "Maybe they ate MORE than Walker detected" → Walker could still be right about fruit
- Option C: "The comparison species AREN'T frugivores" → Walker's logic is broken
Answer: C
1. Australopithecine micro-wear = Chimp/Orangutan micro-wear
2. Chimps/Orangutans are frugivores
3. Therefore, australopithecines were frugivores
Where Your Reasoning Went Wrong:
You focused on: "Can micro-wear detect everything they ate?"
But the question asks: "What would call Walker's CONCLUSION into question?"
Why Option E Fails:
Even if australopithecines ate soft insects (which leave no micro-wear), their teeth would still look like orangutan teeth. Walker's comparison would still hold. He might be incomplete, but not wrong.
Why Option C Works:
Walker's logic depends on orangutans being frugivores. The passage says they are "commonly assumed" to be frugivores - not proven.
If orangutans actually have a "much broader diet" → they're omnivores, not frugivores → matching their micro-wear proves nothing about being a frugivore → Walker's entire comparison collapses.
The Key Distinction:
- Option E: "Maybe they ate MORE than Walker detected" → Walker could still be right about fruit
- Option C: "The comparison species AREN'T frugivores" → Walker's logic is broken
Answer: C
Rickooreoisb
