Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 14:36 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 14:36

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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 538 [21]
Given Kudos: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 261
Own Kudos [?]: 88 [2]
Given Kudos: 233
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Oct 2018
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: Azerbaijan
Sanan Isagov: Sanan Isagov
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools:
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V28
GPA: 4
WE:Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Send PM
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13957
Own Kudos [?]: 32838 [4]
Given Kudos: 5775
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
krishnabalu sisaqov Here it is.

Official Explanation


Topic

Origin of Species

Scope

Whether different species originated independently or whether, at least some of them, have descended from other species

Passage Map

P 1 – To state that it cannot be concluded for sure that each species has descended from some other species rather than having come into existence independently

P 2 – To contradict naturalists who refer to external conditions as the only possible cause of variations amongst species


1. What is the primary purpose of the author in writing the passage?

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation:

The author has conceded the current line of thought about the origin of different species found on earth. However, he also points out inconsistencies which he is convinced need to be delved into further. Hence, option (A) is the correct answer.

(B) The author does not disprove anyone. He merely states that some inconsistencies in a belief make it important to revisit that belief.
(C) The author talks of factors other than external that need to be explored—‘it is equally …plant itself. ’
(D) The author does not try to substantiate anything in the passage.
(E) The author does not dedicate the entire passage to discussing the structure of different species.

Answer: A


2. A naturalist is likely to consider for mutual affinities of organic beings, each of the following factors EXCEPT:

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation:

Towards the end of para 1, the author has put forward his opinion that besides the factors mentioned by naturalists (the options), it is imperative to consider how such perfect co-dependence exists between species. Hence, option (E) is the correct answer. A, B, and C are mentioned in the opening sentence of Para 1 and D is mentioned in the last sentence of para 2.

Answer: E


3. Which of the following can be inferred from the information in the passage?

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation

The last part of the second para clearly explains that the mistletoe has flowers having separate sexes, so it needs the assistance of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other. It obviously can’t do so on its own. Thus, (E) is the correct answer.

(A) Opposite. Most naturalists believe that each species has descended from some other species.
(B) Opposite. The author states, in the last sentence of the passage, that the unique characteristics of the woodpecker and the mistletoe cannot be explained merely as the effect of external conditions.
(C) Opposite. According to the author, this commonly accepted belief is clearly not sufficient to explain the existence of species such as the woodpecker and the mistletoe.
(D) This may or may not be true but cannot be ascertained for sure from the passage.

Answer: E


4. The tone of the author can best be described as:

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

The author has first stated the accepted theories about origin of species. Then, he has put forth his opinion and substantiated it with relevant examples. Hence, (B) is the correct answer.

(A) The author is not critical of the views—he merely does not accept them as the final explanation.
(C) The words are extreme—the author does agree to the prevalent line of thought, but he also wants the alternatives explored.
(D) Same as C.
(E) The author has not used any word/phrase which would imply exuberance.

Answer: B


Hope it helps
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Posts: 46
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 75
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
please provide explanation of question 2
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13957
Own Kudos [?]: 32838 [1]
Given Kudos: 5775
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Kanvi wrote:
please provide explanation of question 2


Official Explanation


2. A naturalist is likely to consider for mutual affinities of organic beings, each of the following factors EXCEPT:

Difficulty Level: Hard

Explanation:

Towards the end of para 1, the author has put forward his opinion that besides the factors mentioned by naturalists (the options), it is imperative to consider how such perfect co-dependence exists between species. Hence, option (E) is the correct answer.

A, B, and C are mentioned in the opening sentence of Para 1 and D is mentioned in the last sentence of para 2.

Answer: E


Hope it helps
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2019
Posts: 22
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
Hi group.
Question 4: The author seems to be a) critical or d) disbelieving by the words he uses in the passage. Please explain. Thanks
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13957
Own Kudos [?]: 32838 [1]
Given Kudos: 5775
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
coreyshiff wrote:
Hi group.
Question 4: The author seems to be a) critical or d) disbelieving by the words he uses in the passage. Please explain. Thanks


Official Explanation


4. The tone of the author can best be described as:

Difficulty Level: Very Hard

Explanation

The author has first stated the accepted theories about origin of species. Then, he has put forth his opinion and substantiated it with relevant examples. Hence, (B) is the correct answer.

(A) The author is not critical of the views—he merely does not accept them as the final explanation.

(C) The words are extreme—the author does agree to the prevalent line of thought, but he also wants the alternatives explored.

(D) Same as C.

(E) The author has not used any word/phrase which would imply exuberance.


Hope it helps
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Feb 2019
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: Canada
Concentration: Marketing
GPA: 3.4
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
1
Kudos
SajjadAhmad wrote:
coreyshiff wrote:
Hi group.
Question 4: The author seems to be a) critical or d) disbelieving by the words he uses in the passage. Please explain. Thanks


Official Explanation


4. The tone of the author can best be described as:

Difficulty Level: Very Hard

Explanation

The author has first stated the accepted theories about origin of species. Then, he has put forth his opinion and substantiated it with relevant examples. Hence, (B) is the correct answer.

(A) The author is not critical of the views—he merely does not accept them as the final explanation.

(C) The words are extreme—the author does agree to the prevalent line of thought, but he also wants the alternatives explored.

(D) Same as C.

(E) The author has not used any word/phrase which would imply exuberance.


Hope it helps


I have a hard time accepting that he is impartial in his writing. He states that "Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co adaptation which most justly excites our admiration." and also "In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions..." This kind of language is not impartial, and would suggest he is disbelieving of the naturalists.

Can anyone help explain this in more detail?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2017
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Location: China
GPA: 3.32
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
Can we have an explanation on Q1? I picked B.
Much thanks.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13957
Own Kudos [?]: 32838 [0]
Given Kudos: 5775
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
Expert Reply
sofronie wrote:
Can we have an explanation on Q1? I picked B.
Much thanks.


Official Explanation

1. What is the primary purpose of the author in writing the passage?

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation:

The author has conceded the current line of thought about the origin of different species found on earth. However, he also points out inconsistencies which he is convinced need to be delved into further. Hence, option (A) is the correct answer.

(B) The author does not disprove anyone. He merely states that some inconsistencies in a belief make it important to revisit that belief.

(C) The author talks of factors other than external that need to be explored—‘it is equally …plant itself. ’

(D) The author does not try to substantiate anything in the passage.

(E) The author does not dedicate the entire passage to discussing the structure of different species.

Answer: A


Hope it helps
Current Student
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 51 [0]
Given Kudos: 51
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 3: 690 Q48 V38
GMAT 4: 700 Q47 V39
GMAT 5: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.44
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
SajjadAhmad wrote:
sofronie wrote:
Can we have an explanation on Q1? I picked B.
Much thanks.


Official Explanation

1. What is the primary purpose of the author in writing the passage?

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation:

The author has conceded the current line of thought about the origin of different species found on earth. However, he also points out inconsistencies which he is convinced need to be delved into further. Hence, option (A) is the correct answer.

(B) The author does not disprove anyone. He merely states that some inconsistencies in a belief make it important to revisit that belief.

(C) The author talks of factors other than external that need to be explored—‘it is equally …plant itself. ’

(D) The author does not try to substantiate anything in the passage.

(E) The author does not dedicate the entire passage to discussing the structure of different species.

Answer: A


Hope it helps


Hi SajjadAhmad

Can you please suggest where my reasoning is wrong
following are the excerpts from the passage
it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite,
In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions

Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory,

Perhaps I might be wrong
But this to me suggests that the author is quite disaproving of the naturalists.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13957
Own Kudos [?]: 32838 [0]
Given Kudos: 5775
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a [#permalink]
Expert Reply
rvarora wrote:

Hi SajjadAhmad

Can you please suggest where my reasoning is wrong
following are the excerpts from the passage
it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite,
In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions

Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory,

Perhaps I might be wrong
But this to me suggests that the author is quite disaproving of the naturalists.


Your identified text from the passage is fine but you probably didn't notice the tone of the author. The author didn't make any conclusive point against naturalists rather he/she softly said the naturalists could be wrong. Two words could and must make a huge difference in the GMAT Reasoning you need to identify the intensity of the words. The author is saying naturalist could be wrong but he didn't say they must be wrong so that is why the author is not disproving rather giving more ideas to explore the true conclusion.

Hope it helps
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2018
Posts: 176
Own Kudos [?]: 73 [0]
Given Kudos: 63
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
Sajjad Bhai...please check OA for Q4..,, Clearly the author is not believing the view of Naturalist... Author is giving example to counter that view of naturalist. So the tone of the author should be somewhat in negative side... eg- Disbelieving.

Although, It may be that wrong answer was present in source itself... What's your personal view Sajjad1994

Also, read this line from para 1 "Nevertheless, such conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory". Clealy the author is disapproving the view of Naturalist.

Also, Taken this way,
the answer for Question 1 should be option B
the answer for Question 4 should be option D
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 13957
Own Kudos [?]: 32838 [0]
Given Kudos: 5775
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Jks3000 wrote:
Sajjad Bhai...please check OA for Q4..,, Clearly the author is not believing the view of Naturalist... Author is giving example to counter that view of naturalist. So the tone of the author should be somewhat in negative side... eg- Disbelieving.

Although, It may be that wrong answer was present in source itself... What's your personal view Sajjad1994

Also, read this line from para 1 "Nevertheless, such conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory". Clealy the author is disapproving the view of Naturalist.

Also, Taken this way,
the answer for Question 1 should be option B
the answer for Question 4 should be option D


I have double checked the OA from source, all OAs are given correct. From my personal point of view I am agree with the OAs. For question #1 I face no problem choosing A instead of B. You are taking the words (i.e unsatisfactory) serious more than required. Maybe you are not taking into the account the overall feel of the passage. The author is just sharing his/her point of view. I agree the tone is toward the negative side but saying that author is disproving is too extreme here according to the overall atmosphere and sense of the passage.

Thank you.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2020
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 72
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
For question 4 I selected option A Critical. The reason is that in second paragraph author is using examples to show that he doesnt not fully agree with the naturalist. Overall author view is that naturalist point should be limited to external factors only and should consider few more reasons to explain the origin of species.
I still didn't get how Option (B) is better than option A
LBS Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2019
Posts: 836
Own Kudos [?]: 775 [0]
Given Kudos: 1577
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
HASTOWINGMAT wrote:
For question 4 I selected option A Critical. The reason is that in second paragraph author is using examples to show that he doesnt not fully agree with the naturalist. Overall author view is that naturalist point should be limited to external factors only and should consider few more reasons to explain the origin of species.
I still didn't get how Option (B) is better than option A

The OA is correct.

I would like to point out to the bold portions taken from the passage which proves the author is not critical -
In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distributions, geological successions and other such facts, might conclude that each species had not independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration.

Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc. as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees.


In the first bold part, the author is not denying that the conclusion may be true, but further studies should be performed.
In the second bold part, the author says partly the naturalist may be true, but they are not fully correct.

If he was being critical, the author would use a few "tougher" words like - 'however, this is not true...' or 'but this justification does not make sense because ..'

The author is not saying the naturalists are completely wrong, but he is saying they cannot be stating things with absolute certainty unless some work (some prerequisites) are met.

Does that help?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2020
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 72
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
AnirudhaS wrote:
HASTOWINGMAT wrote:
For question 4 I selected option A Critical. The reason is that in second paragraph author is using examples to show that he doesnt not fully agree with the naturalist. Overall author view is that naturalist point should be limited to external factors only and should consider few more reasons to explain the origin of species.
I still didn't get how Option (B) is better than option A

The OA is correct.

I would like to point out to the bold portions taken from the passage which proves the author is not critical -
In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distributions, geological successions and other such facts, might conclude that each species had not independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration.

Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc. as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees.


In the first bold part, the author is not denying that the conclusion may be true, but further studies should be performed.
In the second bold part, the author says partly the naturalist may be true, but they are not fully correct.

If he was being critical, the author would use a few "tougher" words like - 'however, this is not true...' or 'but this justification does not make sense because ..'

The author is not saying the naturalists are completely wrong, but he is saying they cannot be stating things with absolute certainty unless some work (some prerequisites) are met.

Does that help?


"Nevertheless, such conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration."
I took this as a critical statement as it highlighlights the analysis of the topic in discussion.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2020
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [1]
Given Kudos: 309
Send PM
In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
1
Kudos
What about the word “preposterous AnirudhaS and Sajjad1994

preposterous
adjective
- contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.

Preposterous is an extreme word, not neutral in any sense. Clearly the author is in complete disbelief !

I am very surprised by the AO for Q4.

Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc. as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, …….. the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2020
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 309
Send PM
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma and CrackVerbalGMAT
Could you please help with this one?

ayerhs wrote:
What about the word “preposterous AnirudhaS and Sajjad1994

preposterous
adjective
- contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.

Preposterous is an extreme word, not neutral in any sense. Clearly the author is in complete disbelief !

I am very surprised by the AO for Q4.

Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc. as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, …….. the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a n [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
13957 posts

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