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

It is currently 19 Sep 2019, 19:07

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

Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Posts: 231
CAT Tests
Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2019, 15:48
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:59) correct 24% (01:59) wrong based on 140 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur tracks, one left by a large grazing dinosaur and the other by a smaller predatory dinosaur. The two sets of tracks make abrupt turns repeatedly in tandem, suggesting that the predator was following the grazing dinosaur and had matched its stride. Modern predatory mammals, such as lions, usually match the stride of prey they are chasing immediately before they strike those prey. This suggests that the predatory dinosaur was chasing the grazing dinosaur and attacked immediately afterwards.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that the predatory dinosaur was following the grazing dinosaur and had matched its stride?

(A) It helps establish the scientific importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as evidence for that conclusion.

(B) It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the argument’s overall conclusion.

(C) It provides the basis for an analogy used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.

(D) It is presented to counteract a possible objection to the argument’s overall conclusion.

(E) It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
CrackVerbal Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2018
Posts: 177
Re: Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2019, 21:00
Quote:
Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur tracks, one left by a large grazing dinosaur and the other by a smaller predatory dinosaur. The two sets of tracks make abrupt turns repeatedly in tandem, suggesting that the predator was following the grazing dinosaur and had matched its stride. Modern predatory mammals, such as lions, usually match the stride of prey they are chasing immediately before they strike those prey. This suggests that the predatory dinosaur was chasing the grazing dinosaur and attacked immediately afterwards.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that the predatory dinosaur was following the grazing dinosaur and had matched its stride?

(A) It helps establish the scientific importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as evidence for that conclusion.

(B) It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the argument’s overall conclusion.

(C) It provides the basis for an analogy used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.

(D) It is presented to counteract a possible objection to the argument’s overall conclusion.

(E) It is the overall conclusion of the argument.


The right answer here is C. WHat this question is asking of us is very similar to what bold-faced questions ask - what role does so and so statement play. The good news is that a statement can only be one of two things: a conclusion or a premise. Moreover, if a statement is not the main conclusion, it is very likely that it is either a premise that supports the conclusion, or another conclusion that disagrees with the main one.

This statement appears to be a conclusion, but not the main one, and not one that contradicts it either. So at best, we can say that it supports the main conclusion - for now.

A - Doesn't say anything about how the conclusion is important. OUT

B - Certainly not rejected, it supports the overall idea. OUT

C - "Provides the basis to support" - this works well enough to keep.

D - We don't see any possible objections to the conclusion here. OUT

E - It's certainly not the conclusion itself. OUT

Hence, even without fully getting to the exact role played by this argument, we can eliminate the other answers and zero in on the right one. When solving such (and boldface) questions you should look to categorise the statement as a premise/conclusion and then see whether it supports/attacks the main conclusion. So long as you get this much sorted, you should have an easier time of getting to the answer.

- Matoo
_________________
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 56
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Sep 2019, 15:18
We need to identify what role "predatory dinosaur was following the grazing dinosaur and had matched its stride" plays in the argument. Let't break down the argument.

Background: excavation of dinosaur tracks. 2 found
1ºpremise: 2 tracks make same abrupts. Predator matched Grazing dinosaur. What role plays this?
2ºpremise: modern predators match stride of pray before striking them
Conclusion: Therefore, predator dinosaur did so (same as modern predatory mammals)


Let's think: 1º premise is describing what happened with the purpose of comparing it with something from the present to draw the same conclusion about the present using the facts from the past. So the option should say something along these lines (more professionally of course!)

(A) It helps establish the scientific importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as evidence for that conclusion.

Scientific importance? Just a description of a situation in the past. Incorrect

(B) It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the argument’s overall conclusion.

It doesn't reject the hypothesis. The conclusion improves the hypothesis with additional info. Incorrect

(C) It provides the basis for an analogy used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.

It sounds amazing! We are describing something similar to what it is described in the conclusion, so it is an analogy!. Correct

(D) It is presented to counteract a possible objection to the argument’s overall conclusion.

Doesn't sound bad either, but since it is analogy, it is not filling any real gap so it cannot counteract anything. Incorrect

(E) It is the overall conclusion of the argument.

It is not the conclusion. Incorrect

OPTION C
_________________
One way to keep momentum going is to have constantly greater goals - Michael Korda

Kudos me if this post helps you ;)
GMAT Club Bot
Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur   [#permalink] 05 Sep 2019, 15:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur

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





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