Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 19:55 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 19:55

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:
Difficulty: 555-605 Levelx   Long Passagex   Sciencex               
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 May 2021
Posts: 47
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 57
Send PM
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4347
Own Kudos [?]: 30796 [3]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1378
Own Kudos [?]: 846 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
DiyaDutta wrote:
In Question 7, I can see how E is the correct answer as it is not supported by the passage because of these lines "But even where the molecular processes are the same, the details in the two forms are different and characteristic of the respective forms. For example, the amino acid sequences of various enzymes tend to be typically prokaryotic or eukaryotic". But can someone tell me how does one prove choice A to be supported by the passage?

The passage first explains that it was "once assumed" that life could be divided into two evolutionary branches: the eukaryotic branch and "true bacteria," which are prokaryotic.

Then, the passage amends this explanation to account for three evolutionary branches: the eukaryotic branch, the true bacteria branch, and another prokaryotic branch called archaebacteria.

Even in this amended explanation, true bacteria form their own distinct evolutionary group -- the only change is that an another group is added. (A) is supported by the information in the passage, so it is not the answer to question #7.

I hope that helps!



GMATNinja VeritasKarishma:

Please clarify doubt on Q7 for option A and E

Quote:
(A) True bacteria form a distinct evolutionary group.

1. the true bacteria are prokaryotic cell
2. the true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group, --> it means many varieties under this group
3. certain other bacteria, the archaebacteria, which are also prokaryotes and which resemble true bacteria,
3rd says that archaebacteria are prokaryotes and also true bacteria.

As GMATNinja above explanation says: archaebacteria is prokaryotes --> means divided from prokaryotes but not from true bacteria
According to my understanding , true bacteria is a coherent group but not evoluaitonary group

I know I am wrong, please suggest what am I missing?


Quote:
(E) Amino acid sequences of enzymes are uniform for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms.

the amino acid sequences of various enzymes tend to be typically prokaryotic or eukaryotic.

it doesn't mean these sequences are UNIFORM

So I choose E over A as A had already too much interpretation

Please guide GMATNinja VeritasKarishma :please:
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 57
Send PM
It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
APOGEE wrote:
GMATNinja In question number 6,i have extracted the correct answer using poe, but can someone please address how option c is inferred, is it from the first few lines of the first para -describing the structure of pro. and eukr. ??



Hi Apogee,

In the first paragraph, the author introduces the two category theory - all life is either eukaryotic or true bacteria (prokaryotic). We are then told how the differences between the two are not just observed at a microscopic level, but also at an even tinier level (molecular). Observation of the similarities and differences led the researchers to believe that there are only these 2 categories (eukaryote, true bacteria (prokaryote)).

Check this line too:

"Moreover, arguments pointing out the extent of both structural and functional differences between eukaryotes and true bacteria convinced many biologists that..."

Again - it is very clear that for the researchers/biologists who advocated the two category theory, eukaryotes and true bacteria are structurally and functionally different! So, as per the researchers, these are two fundamentally different types.

This is where option C is inferred from, as per me.

The next paragraph is essentially the author coming in and explaining the existence of a third category, archaebacteria - also prokaryotic, but distinct from true bacteria. This calls into question the notion that only two categories exist. But it also does not in anyway change the notion that eukaryotes and true bacteria are different, it only adds a third category.

So, option C is perfectly valid as per the information in the passage - the researchers were indeed right in thinking that eukaryotes are fundamentally different from true bacteria. This is true as per the passage.


Hope this helps!

Regards,
Harsha



Thanku for taking time and addressing the question, i get it now, how it can be inferred.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64924 [2]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
gmatcrook wrote:
The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 10th Edition, 2003

Practice Question
Question No.: RC 183 ~ 189
Page: 378

It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two fundamental and exhaustive categories. Multicellular plants and animals, as well as many unicellular organisms, are eukaryotic—their large, complex cells have a well-formed nucleus and many organelles. On the other hand, the true bacteria are prokaryotic cell, which are simple and lack a nucleus. The distinction between eukaryotes and bacteria, initially defined in terms of subcellular structures visible with a microscope, was ultimately carried to the molecular level. Here prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells have many features in common. For instance, they translate genetic information into proteins according to the same type of genetic coding. But even where the molecular processes are the same, the details in the two forms are different and characteristic of the respective forms. For example, the amino acid sequences of various enzymes tend to be typically prokaryotic or eukaryotic. The differences between the groups and the similarities within each group made it seem certain to most biologists that the tree of life had only two stems. Moreover, arguments pointing out the extent of both structural and functional differences between eukaryotes and true bacteria convinced many biologists that the precursors of the eukaryotes must have diverged from the common ancestor before the bacteria arose.

Although much of this picture has been sustained by more recent research, it seems fundamentally wrong in one respect. Among the bacteria, there are organisms that are significantly different both from the cells of eukaryotes and from the true bacteria, and it now appears that there are three stems in the tree of life. New techniques for determining the molecular sequence of the RNA of organisms have produced evolutionary information about the degree to which organisms are related, the time since they diverged from a common ancestor, and the reconstruction of ancestral versions of genes. These techniques have strongly suggested that although the true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group, certain other bacteria, the archaebacteria, which are also prokaryotes and which resemble true bacteria, represent a distinct evolutionary branch that far antedates the common ancestor of all true bacteria.


1. The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) detailing the evidence that has led most biologists to replace the trichotomous picture of living organisms with a dichotomous one
(B) outlining the factors that have contributed to the current hypothesis concerning the number of basic categories of living organisms
(C) evaluating experiments that have resulted in proof that the prokaryotes are more ancient than had been expected
(D) summarizing the differences in structure and function found among true bacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes
(E) formulating a hypothesis about the mechanisms of evolution that resulted in the ancestors of the prokaryotes



2. According to the passage, investigations of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells at the molecular level supported the conclusion that

(A) most eukaryotic organisms are unicellular
(B) complex cells have well-formed nuclei
(C) prokaryotes and eukaryotes form two fundamental categories
(D) subcellular structures are visible with a microscope
(E) prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells have similar enzymes



3. According to the passage, which of the following statements about the two-category hypothesis is likely to be true?

(A) It is promising because it explains the presence of true bacteria-like organisms such as organelles in eukaryotic cells.
(B) It is promising because it explains why eukaryotic cells, unlike prokaryotic cells, tend to form multicellular organisms.
(C) It is flawed because it fails to account for the great variety among eukaryotic organisms.
(D) It is flawed because it fails to account for the similarity between prokaryotes and eukaryotes
(E) It is flawed because it fails to recognize an important distinction among prokaryotes.



4. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following have recently been compared in order to clarify the fundamental classifications of living things?

(A) The genetic coding in true bacteria and that in other prokaryotes
(B) The organelle structures of archaebacteria, true bacteria, and eukaryotes
(C) The cellular structures of multicellular organisms and unicellular organisms
(D) The molecular sequences in eukaryotic RNA, true bacterial RNA, and archaebacterial RNA
(E) The amino acid sequences in enzymes of various eukaryotic species and those of enzymes in archaebacterial species



5. If the “new techniques” mentioned in line 31 were applied in studies of biological classifications other than bacteria, which of the following is most likely?

(A) Some of those classifications will have to be reevaluated.
(B) Many species of bacteria will be reclassified.
(C) It will be determined that there are four main categories of living things rather than three.
(D) It will be found that true bacteria are much older than eukaryotes
(E) It will be found that there is a common ancestor of the eukaryotes, archaebacteria, and true bacteria.



6. According to the passage, researchers working under the two-category hypothesis were correct in thinking that

(A) prokaryotes form a coherent group
(B) the common ancestor of all living things had complex properties
(C) eukaryotes are fundamentally different from true bacteria
(D) true bacteria are just as complex as eukaryotes
(E) ancestral versions of eukaryotic genes functioned differently from their modern counterparts



7. All of the following statements are supported by the passage EXCEPT:

(A) True bacteria form a distinct evolutionary group.
(B) Archaebacteria are prokaryotes that resemble true bacteria.
(C) True bacteria and eukaryotes employ similar types of genetic coding.
(D) True bacteria and eukaryotes are distinguishable at the subcellular level
(E) Amino acid sequences of enzymes are uniform for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms.



8. The author’s attitude toward the view that living things are divided into three categories is best described as one of

(A) tentative acceptance
(B) mild skepticism
(C) limited denial
(D) studious criticism
(E) whole hearted endorsement




First Paragraph - All life can be divided into two evolutionary groups:

Eukaryotic - Multicellular plants and animals, as well as many unicellular organisms —their large, complex cells have a well-formed nucleus and many organelles.
Prokaryotic - True bacteria which are simple and lack a nucleus
They have differences on molecular level.

Second Paragraph - Recent study suggest 3 evolutionary branches:

Eukaryoptic
Prokaryoptic
Archaebacteria (which are also prokaryotes currently) represent a distinct evolutionary branch that far antedates the common ancestor of all true bacteria.
So the "Prokaryotic - True bacteria" group needs to be divided into two distinct groups - "True bacteria" and "Archaebacteria". This is what recent research suggests.


(A) True bacteria form a distinct evolutionary group.
The passage suggests that true bacteria is a distinct evolutionary group.

(B) Archaebacteria are prokaryotes that resemble true bacteria.
The passage suggests this.

(C) True bacteria and eukaryotes employ similar types of genetic coding.
They have similarities.

(D) True bacteria and eukaryotes are distinguishable at the subcellular level
They are distinguishable at molecular level.

(E) Amino acid sequences of enzymes are uniform for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms.
Certainly incorrect.
"But even where the molecular processes are the same, the details in the two forms are different and characteristic of the respective forms. For example, the amino acid sequences of various enzymes tend to be typically prokaryotic or eukaryotic."

Answer (E)
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63669 [2]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply

Question 7


mSKR wrote:
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma:

Please clarify doubt on Q7 for option A and E

Quote:
(A) True bacteria form a distinct evolutionary group.

1. the true bacteria are prokaryotic cell
2. the true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group, --> it means many varieties under this group
3. certain other bacteria, the archaebacteria, which are also prokaryotes and which resemble true bacteria,
3rd says that archaebacteria are prokaryotes and also true bacteria.

As GMATNinja above explanation says: archaebacteria is prokaryotes --> means divided from prokaryotes but not from true bacteria
According to my understanding , true bacteria is a coherent group but not evoluaitonary group

I know I am wrong, please suggest what am I missing?


Quote:
(E) Amino acid sequences of enzymes are uniform for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms.

the amino acid sequences of various enzymes tend to be typically prokaryotic or eukaryotic.

it doesn't mean these sequences are UNIFORM

So I choose E over A as A had already too much interpretation

Please guide GMATNinja VeritasKarishma :please:

I'm not sure I fully understand your interpretation, but here are a few thoughts on (A) and (E) for question 7.

The question asks us which answer choice is NOT supported by the passage. So, if an answer choice IS supported by the passage, we can cross it out.

Here's (A):
Quote:
(A) True bacteria form a distinct evolutionary group.

As we explained in an earlier post, the passage first explains that it was "once assumed" that life could be divided into two evolutionary branches: the eukaryotic branch and "true bacteria," which are prokaryotic.

Then, the passage amends this explanation to account for three evolutionary branches: the eukaryotic branch, the true bacteria branch, and another prokaryotic branch called archaebacteria.

Even in this amended explanation, true bacteria form their own distinct evolutionary group -- the only change is that an another group is added. (A) is supported by the information in the passage, so it is not the answer to question #7.

In regards to your analysis: saying that something forms "a large coherent group" does NOT imply that there are many varieties within that group. In fact, it implies the opposite -- the definition of "coherent" is "united, or forming a whole." So, true bacteria species are united by their characteristics into a single group.

True bacteria are BOTH a distinct evolutionary group (one of the three defined in the passage), AND a coherent group.

Here's (E):
Quote:
(E) Amino acid sequences of enzymes are uniform for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms.

Remember that we are looking for an answer choice that is NOT supported by the passage. (E) tells us that, for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms, a certain feature is exactly the same. Is this supported by the passage?

This feature is discussed in the first paragraph:

    "But even where the molecular processes are the same, the details in the two forms are different and characteristic of the respective forms. For example, the amino acid sequences of various enzymes tend to be typically prokaryotic or eukaryotic."

This section tells us that the feature in question is different in eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms. So, (E) is certainly NOT supported by the passage.

Because (E) is NOT supported by the passage, it is the correct answer to question #7.

I hope that helps!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2020
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 235 [0]
Given Kudos: 143
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.41
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
3. According to the passage, which of the following statements about the two-category hypothesis is likely to be true?
Scope line: “Although much of this picture has been sustained by more recent research, it seems fundamentally wrong in one respect. Among the bacteria, there are organisms that are significantly different both from the cells of eukaryotes and from the true bacteria, and it now appears that there are three stems in the tree of life.

(A) It is promising because it explains the presence of true bacteria-like organisms such as organelles in eukaryotic cells.
(B) It is promising because it explains why eukaryotic cells, unlike prokaryotic cells, tend to form multicellular organisms.
(C) It is flawed because it fails to account for the great variety among eukaryotic organisms.
(D) It is flawed because it fails to account for the similarity between prokaryotes and eukaryotes
(E) It is flawed because it fails to recognize an important [b]distinction among prokaryotes.[/b]

IMO: E
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2020
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 235 [0]
Given Kudos: 143
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.41
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
4. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following have recently been compared in order to clarify the fundamental classifications of living things?
Scope line: “New techniques for determining the molecular sequence of the RNA of organisms have produced evolutionary information about the degree to which organisms are related, the time since they diverged from a common ancestor, and the reconstruction of ancestral versions of genes.”

(A) The genetic coding in true bacteria and that in other prokaryotes
(B) The organelle structures of archaebacteria, true bacteria, and eukaryotes → Out of Scope
(C) The cellular structures of multicellular organisms and unicellular organisms → Out of Scope
(D) The molecular sequences in eukaryotic RNA, true bacterial RNA, and archaebacterial RNA
(E) The amino acid sequences in enzymes of various eukaryotic species and those of enzymes in archaebacterial species
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2020
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 235 [0]
Given Kudos: 143
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.41
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
5. If the “new techniques” mentioned in line 31 were applied in studies of biological classifications other than bacteria, which of the following is most likely?
Scope line: New techniques for determining the molecular sequence of the RNA of organisms have produced evolutionary information about the degree to which organisms are related, the time since they diverged from a common ancestor, and the reconstruction of ancestral versions of genes.
(A) Some of those classifications will have to be reevaluated.
(B) Many species of bacteria will be reclassified. → the passage said: “other than bacteria”
(C) It will be determined that there are four main categories of living things rather than three.
(D) It will be found that true bacteria are much older than eukaryotes
(E) It will be found that there is a common ancestor of the eukaryotes, archaebacteria, and true bacteria.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2020
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 235 [0]
Given Kudos: 143
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.41
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
7. All of the following statements are supported by the passage EXCEPT:

(A) True bacteria form a distinct evolutionary group.
(B) Archaebacteria are prokaryotes that resemble true bacteria.
(C) True bacteria and eukaryotes employ similar types of genetic coding.
(D) True bacteria and eukaryotes are distinguishable at the subcellular level
(E) Amino acid sequences of enzymes are uniform for eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2020
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Location: India
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
bm2201 wrote:
Ajit97 wrote:
Hi,
Could someone please explain qn6 to me.
I feel the answer should be 'A' for the following reasons
1) its stated in the 3rd last line that although " true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group..." meaning the earlier opinion formed was correct.
2) the recent studies clearly disproves the 2 group model as there is evidence of a third, how can we say that the researchers were correct to assume a two category model, hence eliminating the answer to the question option 'C'

Posted from my mobile device


Hi

True that Option A can be inferred from both of the points mentioned above by you, but what Question 6 is asking is: "researchers working under the two-category hypothesis were correct in thinking that", meaning what were the researchers who worked on two-category hypothesis correct about and that would be C. As even in the the three category hypothesis, there is no mention of eukaryotes not being fundamentally different from true bacteria, implying that regardless that the two-category hypotheses was wrong in one respect, it is was correct in the understanding that eukaryotes are fundamentally different from true bacteria.

Let me know if you still have doubts.

Thanks.


Hi,
I am still not clear why option A is incorrect? Can you please help me with that?
Thank you
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Feb 2018
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 35
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
Hello egmat GMATNinja,
Why can't we say A for Q#6? As per the passage:
"although the true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group"
So, option A saying prokaryotes form a coherent group should be correct. What am I missing?
thanks!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63669 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
Expert Reply

Question 6


vshr wrote:
Hello egmat GMATNinja,
Why can't we say A for Q#6? As per the passage:
"although the true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group"
So, option A saying prokaryotes form a coherent group should be correct. What am I missing?
thanks!

The problem with (A) is that while true bacteria form a large coherent group, prokaryotes do NOT form a large coherent group. Take a closer look at the final sentence of the second paragraph:

    These techniques have strongly suggested that although the true bacteria indeed form a large coherent group, certain other bacteria, the archaebacteria, which are also prokaryotes and which resemble true bacteria, represent a distinct evolutionary branch that far antedates the common ancestor of all true bacteria.

This sentence suggests that we have two distinct groups of prokaryotes: true bacteria and archaebacteria. True bacteria may form a large coherent group, but archaebacteria (which resemble true bacteria but are different than true bacteria) are also prokaryotes. And we cannot say that all prokaryotes (true bacteria and archaebacteria) form a large coherent group. So, we can eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 87
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:

Questions 5 & 8


As a result of using these techniques on true bacteria and eukaryotes, researchers have defined a new evolutionary branch in the tree of life, referred to as “archaebacteria.” Therefore, if we apply these techniques to another biological classification, we expect to learn something new regarding these indicators of ancestry, which would then make us rethink the classification.

Quote:
(A) Some of those classifications will have to be reevaluated.



To me, the wording of option A is bit extreme as it echoes certainty with the use of the word "will". So the best course of action in these types of options may be "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (Sherlock Holmes)
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17222
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: It was once assumed that all living things could be divided into two [#permalink]
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
13961 posts

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