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

It is currently 24 Sep 2018, 22:23

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

On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.45
WE: Marketing (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2012, 02:26
2
7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

25% (01:54) correct 75% (02:23) wrong based on 603 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern Canada, scientists uncovered skeletal remains from about 100,000 years ago. Surprisingly, all the skeletal remains, which included many species from differing biological families and spanned about two thousand years, showed evidence of experiencing temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (or 538 degrees Celsius).

Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent paradox between the cold environment and the evidence of the bones experiencing hot temperatures?

A) Other scientific research released two years before the expedition showed that the remote region of northern Canada underwent considerable warming in the past 100,000 years.

B) Chemical changes that naturally occur during the process of decay in only one north Canadian species produce the same evidence of the species' skeletons being exposed to hot temperatures as the expedition scientists found.

C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.

D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.

E) In the same expedition and in roughly the same layer of excavation, scientists found rudimentary wood cutting and hunting tools used by early humans.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.45
WE: Marketing (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2012, 00:57
5
karun0109 wrote:
Would you mind providing the official explanation if you can?

Posted from my mobile device




Official explaination:

The paradox: Northern Canada is quite cold and yet skeletal remains show evidence of experiencing very hot temperatures. This paradox could be explained by finding evidence that fires regularly occurred that would have subjected the bones to excruciatingly hot temperatures. If evidence existed that early humans from this time period hunted animals and started fires (implicitly for the purpose of cooking the animals--thereby creating skeletons of animals that experienced hot temperatures), a large step in explaining the paradox would be taken.

A.Unraveling the paradox depends on providing an explanation of how the skeletal remains experienced such hot temperatures yet this answer only heightens the paradox as it provides evidence that the skeletons' environment was much colder (not warmer) many years ago.
B.Although this provides an explanation of how "exactly one north Canadian species'" skeletons showed evidence of exposure to hot temperatures, it fails to account for why "many species from differing biological families [that] spanned about two thousand years showed" the same evidence of exposure to hot temperatures.
C.This answer provides an explanation for skeletons showing evidence of experiencing hot temperatures. However, this answer does not explain why this evidence appeared among skeletons whose date "spanned about two thousand years." Further, the fire occurred "a little over 103,000 years ago" while the original argument makes clear that some of the skeletons which showed evidence of experiencing hot temperatures dated after this fire (i.e., the skeletons were from 100,000 years ago and "spanned about two thousand years" while the fire occurred "over 103,000 years ago").
D.The paradox exists in skeletons dating back to 100,000 years ago. Consequently, explaining how a fire (and thus hot temperatures) could have existed "as early as 70,000 years ago" does not explain the paradox. In other words, this answer does not explain how the skeletons of animals 100,000 years old experienced hot temperatures (although it would explain how skeletons 70,000 years old experienced hot temperatures).
E.While this answer does not prove what caused the chared skeletal remains, it "best explains" how the skeletons experienced hot temperatures (i.e., the hunters cut wood and, implied in this, they started fires to cook animals).
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.45
WE: Marketing (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2012, 02:51
Can anyone enlighten me why is the OA correct?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 111
Location: India
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2012, 04:14
pretty tough question.. All the options seem like weak answer choices.. I would go with C over E though..

A. is unrelated as warming doesn't explain temperatures as high as those
B. is tempting but only about one species whereas evidence was found in all skeletal remains from a variety of species
C. explains how all of the species could have died in a fire leading to that evidence. the 3000 year difference could kill this one but the question does say about 100,000 years ago. Is >103,000 about 100,000?
D. 70,000 years ago so i think it's irrelevant
E. Human presence would suggest they may have been cooked, but for ALL of the skeletons of ALL the species found to have been cooked and eaten by humans seems unlikely to me. :/ So went with C..

Tough question. Would be nice if someone could clear it up..
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.45
WE: Marketing (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2012, 05:26
Same here, I went with C too.

I am actually looking forward to some solid explaination coming from our experienced colleagues..
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2012, 10:29
C for me aswell...in E, finding wood cutting and other tools doesn't warrant that they knew how to light fire IMO...looking for an explanation though..
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 718
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2012, 22:54
What is the source of this question? I go with C as well. Choice E is really not clear to me to be appropriate answer.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.45
WE: Marketing (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2012, 00:09
tuanquang269 wrote:
What is the source of this question? I go with C as well. Choice E is really not clear to me to be appropriate answer.




The source is http://www.PlatinumGMAT.com
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 111
Location: India
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2012, 00:10
Would you mind providing the official explanation if you can?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 111
Location: India
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2012, 07:32
Ahh thank you.. Can't believe how simple it really was. Should have paid more attention to the 2000 year time span which clearly rules out C leaving only E as a plausible explanation...
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.45
WE: Marketing (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Mar 2012, 01:47
Yeah this one is as good as a DS question :lol:
Almost everyone is going with C.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Do till 740 :)
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 92
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 460 Q35 V20
GPA: 3.6
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: PARADOX  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2012, 06:11
I do not get it as to how E can be correct?

Even if other choices are incorrect, E has to be refined to make it the correct answer.

How can we come to a conclusion that wood is being cut only to cook animals?

We can do 1001 things with wood .

I seriously doubt the official Answer.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2013
Posts: 43
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2014, 19:24
pratikbais wrote:
On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern Canada, scientists uncovered skeletal remains from about 100,000 years ago. Surprisingly, all the skeletal remains, which included many species from differing biological families and spanned about two thousand years, showed evidence of experiencing temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit (or 538 degrees Celsius).

Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent paradox between the cold environment and the evidence of the bones experiencing hot temperatures?

A) Other scientific research released two years before the expedition showed that the remote region of northern Canada underwent considerable warming in the past 100,000 years.

B) Chemical changes that naturally occur during the process of decay in only one north Canadian species produce the same evidence of the species' skeletons being exposed to hot temperatures as the expedition scientists found.

C) A little over 103,000 years ago, a large fire is known to have occurred in northern Canada.

D) Strong evidence exists that as early as 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens around the world relied heavily on fire to cook animals.

E) In the same expedition and in roughly the same layer of excavation, scientists found rudimentary wood cutting and hunting tools used by early humans.


1000 degrees by wood fire? This question is just plain ridiculous.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 86
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2016, 09:29
pratikbais wrote:
karun0109 wrote:
Would you mind providing the official explanation if you can?

Posted from my mobile device




Official explaination:

The paradox: Northern Canada is quite cold and yet skeletal remains show evidence of experiencing very hot temperatures. This paradox could be explained by finding evidence that fires regularly occurred that would have subjected the bones to excruciatingly hot temperatures. If evidence existed that early humans from this time period hunted animals and started fires (implicitly for the purpose of cooking the animals--thereby creating skeletons of animals that experienced hot temperatures), a large step in explaining the paradox would be taken.

A.Unraveling the paradox depends on providing an explanation of how the skeletal remains experienced such hot temperatures yet this answer only heightens the paradox as it provides evidence that the skeletons' environment was much colder (not warmer) many years ago.
B.Although this provides an explanation of how "exactly one north Canadian species'" skeletons showed evidence of exposure to hot temperatures, it fails to account for why "many species from differing biological families [that] spanned about two thousand years showed" the same evidence of exposure to hot temperatures.
C.This answer provides an explanation for skeletons showing evidence of experiencing hot temperatures. However, this answer does not explain why this evidence appeared among skeletons whose date "spanned about two thousand years." Further, the fire occurred "a little over 103,000 years ago" while the original argument makes clear that some of the skeletons which showed evidence of experiencing hot temperatures dated after this fire (i.e., the skeletons were from 100,000 years ago and "spanned about two thousand years" while the fire occurred "over 103,000 years ago").
D.The paradox exists in skeletons dating back to 100,000 years ago. Consequently, explaining how a fire (and thus hot temperatures) could have existed "as early as 70,000 years ago" does not explain the paradox. In other words, this answer does not explain how the skeletons of animals 100,000 years old experienced hot temperatures (although it would explain how skeletons 70,000 years old experienced hot temperatures).
E.While this answer does not prove what caused the chared skeletal remains, it "best explains" how the skeletons experienced hot temperatures (i.e., the hunters cut wood and, implied in this, they started fires to cook animals).



E should not be the answer, how do we know that humans discovered fire at that time, another options states fire was being used only 70,000 years ago.
this question is flawed, best possible solution is A, although its no where near perfect.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 5
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Reviews Badge
Re: On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2016, 10:29
E,
A tool should be sharp and strong enough to cut an wood. From this ,we can imply that, Tool was made of metal or alloy. And metals and alloys need heating at a temperature of this range (500 + degree Celsius) for shaping them into sharper tools..:-)
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2967
Premium Member
Re: On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2018, 07:11
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: On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern &nbs [#permalink] 22 Aug 2018, 07:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

On a recent expedition to a remote region of northern

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.