Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoths extincti

I do not know the source but is a good question.

Basically the argument says: we want an answer that confirm that the humans were responsable of the X extinction

E is the only choice tha weaken the argumet. I think one of the most tricky part here is not so much the stimulus but the stem: it has a sort of double negation that leads you to think a bit.

Should be E

regards

I think that the major take-away in this scenario (the question and the typo) is this: of course is rare if not impossible to have an error in a question from gmac,, still is possible to do not understand the whole nuances of the question but you are STILL able to pick the correct one understanding the whole thing

I didn't even notice the error, and I pick the right choice in 40 seconds

Morale of the story: do not be stuck

regards

understood ! .. It seems you 're damn quick in tackling CR questions . It took me 1:50 sec to zero in the correct answer .How do you maintain such a pace ?..appreciate if you could share some tactics . Any CR question with difficulty level ~650+ takes me 2-3 mins to answer

mmmm

on one sideis really a question of practice, and when I say practice I mean a lotttttt of practice. Trying to study the question at end not only to pick the right one but also to understand why. To understand the dicothomy of the question itself (is not important if it is verbal or math)

on the other side I read SUPER carefully the stimulus to disentangle why is so, why is that. here an example: a question from OG the last one so should be difficult, a really upper level question.



My process: breaking down the stumulus in sentences. the same RC strategy that I adopt: the stop strategy. In that way I do not re-read the stimulus and eliminate the answer right away. one by one.



the ratio is constant. no matter what, cannot be unbalanced. Better: can not exceed a certain level. for what reason: major costs and so on.....ok well. go ahead



pretty clear



Here is the key point: if this happens the ratio is going to be unbalanced (see the first sentence)



Conclusion: a lot of people can be teacher. Now: or we have more students to maintain the ratio costant if the teachers go up OR we have to eliminate one of the two variables: the children is not possible because all students have the same rights to attend the school so we have to eliminate or to find a reason to eliminate the teacher to have a costant ratio OR that this does not exceed a certain limit

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether inVargonia there are any schools not funded bythe government that offer children an education free of charge

school not funded: we care about FOUNDED...delete

(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions

In either scenarios the ratio could be out of balance: or more teachers than students (if qualified) or more students than teachers (if not qualified)

(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is

The current ratio: is not important. we care about the NEW ratio in the new scanario when a downturn comes into the picture

(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools

The proportion among the teachers is not our concern

(E) Whether in the past a number of government-funded schools in Vargonia have had student-teacher ratios this option well in excess of the new limit

In the past: one second of thinking and delete

Notice how in this last option we talk about limit and ratio: exactly what we have talked before to see this option, reading the stimulus. This confirms us that our hint was right.


This way of thinking should be flexible, depends on the context but for sure is quite good: because it is not related to a rigid strategy, on what you learn from books (though is what we learn in concrete to overcome the test) and permits you if do not understand a single word to bypass the whole thing and move on. In other words, do not be stuck.

I hope this helps you

regards

Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s extinction in North America coincided with a migration of humans onto the continent 12,000 years ago, and stone spearheads from this period indicate that these people were hunters. But the author's contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the woolly mammoth‘s extinction is surely wrong since, as paleontologists know, no spearheads have ever been found among the many mammoth bones that have been unearthed.

Conclusion:
being hunted by humans contributed to the woolly mammoth‘s extinction is surely wrong.

Perkin's conclusion relies upon the following fact:
no spearheads have ever been found among the many mammoth bones that have been unearthed.

If we can somehow show/explain ,why the spearheads were not found among mamoth bones then the conclusion will be weaken.

Option B: The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.
>>It supports Perkins argument instead of weakening it.If spearheads cant disintegrated then they shld have been present among the bones, but this is not the case.Hence its possible that human didn't hunt woolly mammoth.

option C:
>>introduces a trap.just mentions about the meat.This meat could be of any animal.
Also it still doesn't answer why the spearheads were not found near the site.We need an answer that links the bone found and missing spearheads.

Correct answer option E:
Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would have been unlikely to leave them behind.
>>This could be a reason why the spearheads were not found near the mamoth bones.

the woolly mammoth‘s extinction in North America coincided with a migration of humans onto the continent 12,000 years ago, and stone spearheads from this period indicate that these people were hunters.

author's contention: hunting by humans contributed to the woolly mammoth‘s extinction

Perkins conclusion: the author's contention is surely wrong i.e., humans are not responsible for mammoth's extinction.

Perkins reason or evidence: No spearheads have ever been found among the many mammoth bones that have been unearthed.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for discounting(Weaken) the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the North American extinction of woolly mammoths?

We need a choice which weakens the perkins or strenghtens the authors assertion. I interpreted it exactly opposite due to unknown usage of word discount.

A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found...............we are not bothered with other mammals.

B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years..............then they should have bee found. This strengthens perkins statement. Opposite.

C. Conditions in North America 12,000 years ago were such that humans could not have survived there on a diet that did not include substantial amounts of meat.............this indicates that they hunted but there is no info to indicate that humans hunted mammals and caused their extinction.

D. Cave paintings in North America that date from 12,000 years ago depict woolly mammoths as well as a variety of other animals, including deer and buffalo................we have info that paintings depict animals but it is not known whether they show any info regarding mammal population or human hunting mannerisms wrt mammals.

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would have been unlikely to leave them behind............this attacks the Perkins evidence why we could not find spearheads amidst the bones of mammals. thereby weakening Perkins statement.

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.