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

 It is currently 20 Apr 2019, 21:28

### 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

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

# Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 268
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Other
GPA: 2.44
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)

### Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Jan 2019, 17:11
7
20
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

78% (02:01) correct 22% (02:17) wrong based on 445 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Edit: This post is retired. New question discussed here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/perkins-acco ... 44207.html

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.

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

(A) At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.

(B) The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Originally posted by guerrero25 on 28 Sep 2013, 16:06.
Last edited by hazelnut on 19 Jan 2019, 17:11, edited 3 times in total.
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 98
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2013, 20:22
6
guerrero25 wrote:
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.

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

A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.

B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.

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.

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.

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would have been to leave them behind.

Author's conclusion : That woolly mammoth were not killed by humans, coz there was no trace of spearhead in the bones of animal
Our aim : Weaken author's claim [ although its phrased in the most complicated way - the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention]

E could be the answer, if its phrased as below

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would NOT have been to leave left them behind.

If hunter had left the spear head behind, then we should find it in the bones of mammoth. Morover the phrase does not sound correct in its current form. If the effort required are great then why to leave it behind? Chances are that they would take them back with them.

Then E would imply that hunter wont leave the spear heads behind and hence paleontologists didn't find any spearhead from the bones of woolly mammoth, although they were killed by humans
Do let me know if my reasoning is correct and that answer E is missing few words. thanks
_________________
“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.”
##### General Discussion
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3356
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2013, 18:11
2
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
_________________
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2013
Posts: 49
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.86
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2013, 21:28
ankur1901 wrote:
guerrero25 wrote:
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.

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

A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.

B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.

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.

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.

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would have been to leave them behind.

Author's conclusion : That woolly mammoth were not killed by humans, coz there was no trace of spearhead in the bones of animal
Our aim : Weaken author's claim [ although its phrased in the most complicated way - the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention]

E could be the answer, if its phrased as below

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would NOT have been to leave left them behind.

If hunter had left the spear head behind, then we should find it in the bones of mammoth. Morover the phrase does not sound correct in its current form. If the effort required are great then why to leave it behind? Chances are that they would take them back with them.

Then E would imply that hunter wont leave the spear heads behind and hence paleontologists didn't find any spearhead from the bones of woolly mammoth, although they were killed by humans
Do let me know if my reasoning is correct and that answer E is missing few words. thanks

Yes, I agree with you here. (E) is the correct answer if the choice is corrected as you said above.
_________________
Don't be afraid to fail, but be afraid not to try
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 268
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Other
GPA: 2.44
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2013, 02:51
ankur1901 wrote:
guerrero25 wrote:
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.

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

A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.

B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.

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.

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.

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would have been to leave them behind.

Author's conclusion : That woolly mammoth were not killed by humans, coz there was no trace of spearhead in the bones of animal
Our aim : Weaken author's claim [ although its phrased in the most complicated way - the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention]

E could be the answer, if its phrased as below

E. Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would NOT have been to leave left them behind.

If hunter had left the spear head behind, then we should find it in the bones of mammoth. Morover the phrase does not sound correct in its current form. If the effort required are great then why to leave it behind? Chances are that they would take them back with them.

Then E would imply that hunter wont leave the spear heads behind and hence paleontologists didn't find any spearhead from the bones of woolly mammoth, although they were killed by humans
Do let me know if my reasoning is correct and that answer E is missing few words. thanks

your reasoning is correct . I missed "unlikely" when typing option E . This has been corrected now . thanks !
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3356
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2013, 04:43
2
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
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 268
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Other
GPA: 2.44
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2013, 05:37
carcass wrote:
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
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3356
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2013, 09:45
4
1
guerrero25 wrote:
carcass wrote:
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.

Quote:
Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that student-teacher ratios in government-funded schools not
exceed a certain limit. All Vargonian children are entitled to education, free of charge, in these schools. When a
recession occurs and average incomes fall, the numberof children enrolled in government-funded schools tends
to increase. Therefore, though most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a
teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.
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
(B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases
significantly during economic recessions
(C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is
(D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools
(E) Whether in the past a number of government-funded schools in Vargonia have had student-teacher ratios
well in excess of the new limit

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.

Quote:
Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that student-teacher ratios in government-funded schools not
exceed a certain limit

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

Quote:
All Vargonian children are entitled to education, free of charge, in these schools

pretty clear

Quote:
When a recession occurs and average incomes fall, the number of children enrolled in government-funded schools tends to increase.

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

Quote:
Therefore, though most employment opportunities contract in economic recessions, getting a teaching job in Vargonia's government-funded schools will not be made more difficult by a recession.

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
_________________
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 35
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT Date: 12-10-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2013, 11:01
I must say carcass...getting right answer in 40 sec is just too good..
I normally take 1min to understand the argument, and next 30 seconds or more in finding right answer.
how you managed to get such high speed of reading as well as comprehending? Would you mind sharing some tips ?
Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 11
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2014, 03:17
I greatly struggled with this question in understanding the question stem: it's really convoluted. In the end I realized that there is an easy way to cope with the issue especially under exam conditions when the GMAT fatigue haunts your mind and tends to make you blind.

One can easily convert the complex stem:
"Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the North American extinction of woolly mammoths?"

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

Cut the word glut and translate the stem into: Which one provide the strongest reason for weakening Perkins statement?

P.S. I do not understand why GMAC sometimes uses obscure words such as "spearhead" ('hunting tool' is a good substitute)? The latter, is of clear disadvantage for non-native speakers.
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 143
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 13:00
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.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the North American extinction of woolly mammoths?
A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.
B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.
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.
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.
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.
I am confused between B and E. Official explanation is not clear to me.
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 143
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 13:12
1
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.

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

A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.
B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.
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.
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.
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.
I am confused between B and E. Official explanation is not clear to me.

Question Discussed here: http://gmatclub.com/forum/perkins-accor ... l#p1272074
Director
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 676
Location: India
GPA: 3.21
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 20:37
Raihanuddin wrote:
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.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the North American extinction of woolly mammoths?
A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.
B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.
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.
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.
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.
I am confused between B and E. Official explanation is not clear to me.

_________________

“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9125
Location: Pune, India
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 21:31
3
1
Raihanuddin wrote:
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.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the North American extinction of woolly mammoths?
A. At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.
B. The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.
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.
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.
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.
I am confused between B and E. Official explanation is not clear to me.

We need to find the option that discounts the evidence. Evidence is "no spearheads have ever been found among the many mammoth bones that have been unearthed"
This evidence was given to prove that humans did not hunt woolly mammoths. We want to find the option that says that the given evidence does not mean humans did not hunt woolly mammoths.

(B) actually strengthens the evidence instead of discounting (weakening) it. If the stone is unlikely to disintegrate, then had humans hunted mammoths, it is likely that we would have found spearheads among mammoth bones. Since no spearheads were found, it increases the probability that humans did not hunt mammoths.

(E) discounts the evidence. It says that hunters did not leave behind their spearheads and that is why we did not find any spearheads among mammoth bones. So the evidence that author gave to show that humans did not hunt mammoths is weakened. Perhaps humans did hunt mammoths and just did not leave their spearheads behind because it was hard work to make a spearhead.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 435
Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 22:03
2
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.

Because of the great effort that would have been required to produce each stone spearhead, hunters would have been unlikely to leave them behind.
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 143
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 22:28
1
I misunderstood the meaning of disintegrated. It's easy. Thank you.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1107
Location: India
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2016, 08:28
Attachment:

020_021_Mammoth.png [ 297.36 KiB | Viewed 5312 times ]
Attachment:

bb_mammoth1_feat.png [ 328.85 KiB | Viewed 5321 times ]

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.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1319
Location: Malaysia
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2017, 07:26
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.

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

(A) At sites where mammoth bones dating from 12,000 years ago have been unearthed, bones of other mammals have rarely been found.

(B) The stone from which stone spearheads were made is unlikely to have disintegrated over the course of 12,000 years.

(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.

(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.

(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.

GMATPrep Code : VCR001345
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2017, 08:00
hazelnut wrote:
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.

Dear hazelnut,

Topics merged. Please always search extensively for a question, especially an official question, before starting a new thread.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Re: Perkins: According to an article I read, the woolly mammoth‘s   [#permalink] 07 Jul 2017, 08:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by