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.
30 Sep 2022, 05:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
StandardizedNerd
Networks of blood vessels in bats' wings serve only to disperse heat generated in flight. This heat is generated only because bats flap their wings. Thus paleontologists' recent discovery that the winged dinosaur Sandactylus had similar networks of blood vessels in the skin of its wings provides evidence for the hypothesis that Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings, not just by gliding.
Argument: Networks of blood vessel -> ONLY to disperse heat -> Heat is ONLY because of flapping of wings
Same networks found in Sandactylus wing, so hypothesis - Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings- is strengthened.
The argument in the passage relies on which of the following assumptions?
A) Sandactylus would not have had networks of blood vessels in the skin of its wings if these networks were of no use to Sandactylus.
After going through all options, I would stick to this option as all other are way off the mark.
This assumption would have been more appealing if somewhere in the argument, it could have mentioned that the purpose of these networks is ONLY to dissipate heat. The argument does stress on ONLY but only in case of the bats. We have to stretch that to Sandactylus too.
Nevertheless, there is no other better option.
B) All creatures that fly by flapping their wings have networks of blood vessels in the skin of their wings.
We are looking for the opposite.
'All creatures that have networks of blood vessels in the skin of their wings fly by flapping their wings' would be a perfect assumption.
C) Winged dinosaurs that flapped their wings in flight would have been able to fly more effectively than winged dinosaurs that could only glide.
Effectiveness - we are not comparing the efficiency of flights.
D) If Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings, then paleontologists would certainly be able to find some evidence that it did so.
The paleontologists are doing a great job. But how is it connected to network of blood vessels pointing towards flapping wings.
E) Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings in flight could not have been dispersed by anything other than the blood vessels in its wings.
This would surely help incase argument was about proving that Sandactylus had blood vessels in its wings. But here WHAT(Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings) we are using to prove something else is exactly what we require to prove.
Although A leaves room for a bit of error, there is no better choice than A.
Networks of blood vessels in bats' wings serve only to disperse heat generated in flight. This heat is generated only because bats flap their wings. Thus paleontologists' recent discovery that the winged dinosaur Sandactylus had similar networks of blood vessels in the skin of its wings provides evidence for the hypothesis that Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings, not just by gliding.
Argument: Networks of blood vessel -> ONLY to disperse heat -> Heat is ONLY because of flapping of wings
Same networks found in Sandactylus wing, so hypothesis - Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings- is strengthened.
The argument in the passage relies on which of the following assumptions?
A) Sandactylus would not have had networks of blood vessels in the skin of its wings if these networks were of no use to Sandactylus.
After going through all options, I would stick to this option as all other are way off the mark.
This assumption would have been more appealing if somewhere in the argument, it could have mentioned that the purpose of these networks is ONLY to dissipate heat. The argument does stress on ONLY but only in case of the bats. We have to stretch that to Sandactylus too.
Nevertheless, there is no other better option.
B) All creatures that fly by flapping their wings have networks of blood vessels in the skin of their wings.
We are looking for the opposite.
'All creatures that have networks of blood vessels in the skin of their wings fly by flapping their wings' would be a perfect assumption.
C) Winged dinosaurs that flapped their wings in flight would have been able to fly more effectively than winged dinosaurs that could only glide.
Effectiveness - we are not comparing the efficiency of flights.
D) If Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings, then paleontologists would certainly be able to find some evidence that it did so.
The paleontologists are doing a great job. But how is it connected to network of blood vessels pointing towards flapping wings.
E) Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings in flight could not have been dispersed by anything other than the blood vessels in its wings.
This would surely help incase argument was about proving that Sandactylus had blood vessels in its wings. But here WHAT(Heat generated by Sandactylus in flapping its wings) we are using to prove something else is exactly what we require to prove.
Although A leaves room for a bit of error, there is no better choice than A.
26 Mar 2023, 06:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
KarishmaB
I am confused between A and D
A) The problem with this answer option is that it does not talk about flapping. It says if blood vessels exist, then they must be of some use. But that 'use' can be anything, right? The option does not state that they are used for 'flapping'
D) On negating this answer option, we get - If P then Q, where
P = Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings
Q= paleontologists would NOT be able to find some evidence that it did so.
But we know that they have found some evidence, i.e. ~Q is true. This implies that P is not true, which breaks the argument that Sandactylus can fly by flapping wings.
I am confused between A and D
A) The problem with this answer option is that it does not talk about flapping. It says if blood vessels exist, then they must be of some use. But that 'use' can be anything, right? The option does not state that they are used for 'flapping'
D) On negating this answer option, we get - If P then Q, where
P = Sandactylus flew by flapping its wings
Q= paleontologists would NOT be able to find some evidence that it did so.
But we know that they have found some evidence, i.e. ~Q is true. This implies that P is not true, which breaks the argument that Sandactylus can fly by flapping wings.
27 Mar 2023, 00:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
abhinavbohra
The blood vessels exist in the wings. If they must be of some use, that use must have something to do with how the wings are used.
The assumption is that the blood vessels cannot exist without any use.
Negate (A): S could have blood vessels in wings without any use.
Then can we say that S flew by flapping wings? No. We are relying on the info that there are these blood vessels in the wings to say that they must have flapped their wings. But what if the blood vessels can just exist without any use. Then we cannot say that they must have existed because S flapped their wings.
Negation of (A) breaks our conclusion and hence is the answer.
(D) doesn't have much relevance.
If says that if S were flapping their wings, then paleontologists would find some evidence that they did so.
Negate it: if S were flapping their wings, paleontologists may not find some evidence that they did so.
The negation of 'would find' is 'may not find.'
It is like 'I am certain' vs 'I am not certain'
Option (D) doesn't have any impact on our conclusion.
