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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Join a free live webinar and find out which skills will get you to the top, and what you can do to develop them. Save your spot today! Tuesday, July 16th at 3 pm PST
The Competition Continues - Game of Timers is a team-based competition based on solving GMAT questions to win epic prizes! Starting July 1st, compete to win prep materials while studying for GMAT! Registration is Open! Ends July 26th
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 17 Dec 2018, 09:03
6
38
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
65% (hard)
Question Stats:
62% (02:16) correct 38% (02:27) wrong based on 1493 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites - calcite formations deposited on cave ceilings by seeping water - can reveal annual variations in rainfall in particular areas over hundreds and thousands of years. We often found that when - according to these cross-sections - drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area. I hypothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity in these areas, thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the support for the scientist's hypothesis?
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies.
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall.
I thought "the support" for the scientist's hypothesis is that "We often found that when-according to these cross-sections-drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area", and thus ended at wavering between A and E So any ideas?
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Mar 2016, 20:59
10
1
Conclusion: Drought reduced agricultural produce --> Resources were unavailable to handle threats and stresses.
Possible Weakener: 1) Agricultural produce was not reduced. Resources were available.
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. - Incorrect - Few droughts may have still indicated a collapse of society and scientists may have derived their conclusion based on them. Also, the option attacks the premise rather than the conclusion.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. - Incorrect - Again this option attacks the premise and the facts stated.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. - Incorrect - Irrelevant
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. - Correct - Agricultural produce was available during drought.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. - Incorrect - Out of context.
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Jul 2016, 13:05
1
Vyshak wrote:
Conclusion: Drought reduced agricultural produce --> Resources were unavailable to handle threats and stresses.
Possible Weakener: 1) Agricultural produce was not reduced. Resources were available.
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. - Incorrect - Few droughts may have still indicated a collapse of society and scientists may have derived their conclusion based on them. Also, the option attacks the premise rather than the conclusion.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. - Incorrect - Again this option attacks the premise and the facts stated.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. - Incorrect - Irrelevant
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. - Correct - Agricultural produce was available during drought.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. - Incorrect - Out of context.
Answer: D
I was very torn between B and D. Can you please explain why it is not B? I understand this premise attacks the facts stated; however, his hypothesis is founded on that premise and thus the hypothesis is very weak if it is founded on a premise that you cannot found a premise on (per choice B; all the support for his hypothesis is gone in an instant with B)...
To me, D you *must* assume (code red never to do on CR) that there isn't food left over because the dictators/leaders etc. kept it all to themselves. Thus, their society collapsed around them. Or some other plausible explanation. The hypothesis is based on a drought weakening agricultural output. B says, objectively (no possible fringe scenario I can think of), that using XSection alone is insufficient to draw any conclusion about agricultural output.
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Jul 2016, 04:26
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites - calcite formations deposited on cave ceilings by seeping water - can reveal annual variations in rainfall in particular areas over hundreds and thousands of years. We often found that when-according to these cross-sections-drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area. I hypothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity in these areas, thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the support for the scientist's hypothesis?
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies.
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall.
Can someone please explain why E) is wrong in the mock test, i was confused between E and D. Finally i marked D
Is E wrong because it talks about the collapse of some societies which coincided with periods of high rainfall, the earlier discoveries need not talk about the same socities. Different stalactities could indicate different eras and diff rainfall estimates ?
_________________
You have to dig deep and find out what it takes to reshuffle the cards life dealt you
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Jul 2016, 09:26
8
1
tronghieu1987 wrote:
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites - calcite formations deposited on cave ceilings by seeping water - can reveal annual variations in rainfall in particular areas over hundreds and thousands of years. We often found that when-according to these cross-sections-drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area. I hypothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity in these areas, thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the support for the scientist's hypothesis?
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies.
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall.
I thought "the support" for the scientist's hypothesis is that "We often found that when-according to these cross-sections-drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area", and thus ended at wavering between A and E So any ideas?
A very beautiful and clever question. Weakener and causal effects both are merged to make this absolutely gorgeous question
If you read the argument carefully and see its conclusion you will see that :- "Society's downfall is correlated to the lack of agricultural resources" ; Draught is mentioned just as a factor that generally brings the above mentioned lack of resources. Stalactites is a red herring to confuse test taker and make him read extraneous useless information.
SO in essence it is lack of agricultural productivity that causes downfall. A weakener will suggest that lack of agricultural productivity does not causes downfall
Option D is telling us that when society fell it has agricultural products , therefore it's fall cannot be attributed to the lack of agricultural resources.
THUS D IS THE CORRECT WEAKENER
D IS THE ANSWER _________________
Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly. FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Aug 2016, 07:57
aniketm.87@gmail.com wrote:
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites - calcite formations deposited on cave ceilings by seeping water - can reveal annual variations in rainfall in particular areas over hundreds and thousands of years. We often found that when-according to these cross-sections-drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area. I hypothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity in these areas, thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the support for the scientist's hypothesis?
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies.
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall.
Can someone please explain why E) is wrong in the mock test, i was confused between E and D. Finally i marked D
Is E wrong because it talks about the collapse of some societies which coincided with periods of high rainfall, the earlier discoveries need not talk about the same socities. Different stalactities could indicate different eras and diff rainfall estimates ?
You can think it like this...Abnormally high rainfall might also contribute to reduced productivity...So E is wrong
_________________
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Oct 2016, 05:01
Vyshak wrote:
Conclusion: Drought reduced agricultural produce --> Resources were unavailable to handle threats and stresses.
Possible Weakener: 1) Agricultural produce was not reduced. Resources were available.
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. - Incorrect - Few droughts may have still indicated a collapse of society and scientists may have derived their conclusion based on them. Also, the option attacks the premise rather than the conclusion.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. - Incorrect - Again this option attacks the premise and the facts stated.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. - Incorrect - Irrelevant
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. - Correct - Agricultural produce was available during drought.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. - Incorrect - Out of context.
Option B is not attacking any fact. "I hipothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity..." is not a fact. It is rather an inference that the author makes based on the fact that there was a drought. The author then draws a conclusion based on this inference, which plays the role of a premise in his hypothesis/argument.
We can weaken the author's hypothesis by either attacking his premise or his conclusion. Option B weakens his premise, while option D weakens his conclusion.
Can anyone please explain the reason why we should discard option B?
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Oct 2016, 12:51
3
EBITDA wrote:
Vyshak wrote:
Conclusion: Drought reduced agricultural produce --> Resources were unavailable to handle threats and stresses.
Possible Weakener: 1) Agricultural produce was not reduced. Resources were available.
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. - Incorrect - Few droughts may have still indicated a collapse of society and scientists may have derived their conclusion based on them. Also, the option attacks the premise rather than the conclusion.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. - Incorrect - Again this option attacks the premise and the facts stated.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. - Incorrect - Irrelevant
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. - Correct - Agricultural produce was available during drought.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. - Incorrect - Out of context.
Option B is not attacking any fact. "I hipothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity..." is not a fact. It is rather an inference that the author makes based on the fact that there was a drought. The author then draws a conclusion based on this inference, which plays the role of a premise in his hypothesis/argument.
We can weaken the author's hypothesis by either attacking his premise or his conclusion. Option B weakens his premise, while option D weakens his conclusion.
Can anyone please explain the reason why we should discard option B?
The conclusion is that drought reduces agricultural productivity, thereby causing collapse of society. The weakening statement should attack the link between drought and collapse of society. However option B links information from stalactites and drought - it does not address the link between drought and collapse. Hence B is not a weakening statement.
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Dec 2016, 03:14
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button - users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Mar 2017, 13:53
premises- cross section of calcium tells anual variation in rainfall according to these cross section drought area- it coincided with the collapse of the society
hypothesis- drought reduced agricultural productivity THEREBY leaving these societies without the resources to handle
PREMISES are facts and true, we can't doubt on it, it is a causal passage - basically saying that drought left the societies without resources
it is assuming that there is no alternative resources for the societies to survive - option D tells that CAUSE( drought then reduced agriculture) happened but the RESULT ( societies without resources ) didn't happen as societies had enough stock or backup of water and food
choice B problem is that we can't doubt what is mentioned as a fact in the premise
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Mar 2017, 05:28
1
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. It is ,"often" in the passage, so the argument doesn't exclude other potential causes. B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. Hypothesis is about adequate availability of goods to sustain society well-being. C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. Strengthen. D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. This statement doesn't go in line with scientists' hypothesis as despite the availability of goods societies collapsed, thus any other reason caused societies stop existing. E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. Abnormally high water could have resulted in crops loss and thereby society crush.
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Mar 2018, 02:20
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites - calcite formations deposited on cave ceilings by seeping water - can reveal annual variations in rainfall in particular areas over hundreds and thousands of years. We often found that when-according to these cross-sections-drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area. I hypothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity in these areas, thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the support for the scientist's hypothesis?
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. ---out of scope. We should be concerned about the hypothesis that is related to the collapsed societies.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. ---irrelevant. Passage states that draught caused loss in agriculture. So we need to consider that fact.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. ---strengthener
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. --- correct
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. --- some will always be there
_________________
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Apr 2018, 07:18
Conclusion: thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
Pre-thinking always helps. we need to weaken above statement. how to do it? this is happening cause due to drought , they are not able to grow anything. what if they have a lot of saved for drought season ???
D is written on the same lines. Straight D is correct answer.
_________________
Thanks! Do give some kudos.
Simple strategy: “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Re: Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Apr 2018, 08:34
1
urvi470 wrote:
Can anyone please explain why C cannot be an answer choice?
C states that the societies collapsed because of reasons other than lack of resources.
Let me try to help you. As mentioned above your conclusion is : thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats. To elaborate on that it is trying to make a point that if there will not less/no agriculture, there will be no/less resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.
choice C is not talking about resources. think it more like this way. suppose they have a lot of food to fill everyone for whole season, but due to internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies, they perished. is it seems a right idea.
Hope it helped. ask specific question if any.
_________________
Thanks! Do give some kudos.
Simple strategy: “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Dec 2018, 18:23
scottT31 wrote:
Vyshak wrote:
Conclusion: Drought reduced agricultural produce --> Resources were unavailable to handle threats and stresses.
Possible Weakener: 1) Agricultural produce was not reduced. Resources were available.
A. Many droughts indicated in the cross-sections of stalactites do not correspond with the collapse of a society in that area. - Incorrect - Few droughts may have still indicated a collapse of society and scientists may have derived their conclusion based on them. Also, the option attacks the premise rather than the conclusion.
B. Information from the cross-sections of stalactites alone cannot reveal the level of agricultural output in an area at a particular time. - Incorrect - Again this option attacks the premise and the facts stated.
C. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts did so when internal power struggles coincided with military raids from neighboring societies. - Incorrect - Irrelevant
D. Most of the societies that collapsed during droughts maintained large stockpiles of food and water at the time of their collapse. - Correct - Agricultural produce was available during drought.
E. Information from stalactites also suggests that the collapse of some societies coincided with periods of abnormally high rainfall. - Incorrect - Out of context.
Answer: D
I was very torn between B and D. Can you please explain why it is not B? I understand this premise attacks the facts stated; however, his hypothesis is founded on that premise and thus the hypothesis is very weak if it is founded on a premise that you cannot found a premise on (per choice B; all the support for his hypothesis is gone in an instant with B)...
To me, D you *must* assume (code red never to do on CR) that there isn't food left over because the dictators/leaders etc. kept it all to themselves. Thus, their society collapsed around them. Or some other plausible explanation. The hypothesis is based on a drought weakening agricultural output. B says, objectively (no possible fringe scenario I can think of), that using XSection alone is insufficient to draw any conclusion about agricultural output.
Thank you.
The conclusion states a CAUSE-EFFECT relationship between: 1. DROUGHTS and LACK OF RESOURCES 2. LACK OF RESOURCES and INABILITY TO COPE 3. INABILITY TO COPE and COLLAPSE
And by transitivity, states a CAUSE-EFFECT relationship between: 4. DROUGHTS and COLLAPSE.
You can see each of the three relationships above as INPUT -> BLACK BOX -> OUTPUT
For example: DROUGHT -> BLACK BOX -> LACK OF RESOURCES
What B is trying to do is to describe or explain the workings inside the first black box. But this is not really relevant to know that THE CONCLUSION DOES STATE such CAUSE-EFFECT relationship, and we don't actually know whether the data resulting from knowing the relationship between drought and agricultural output will support or weaken the DROUGHT-RESOURCES relationship.
In contrast, D clearly counters the first CAUSE-EFFECT relationship and therefore MAKES TRANSITIVITY INAPPLICABLE to get (4). That is, the Conclusion (4) FALLS APART or is -AT THE LEAST- SEVERELY WEAKENED.
gmatclubot
Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites-calcite formations deposited
[#permalink]
29 Dec 2018, 18:23
close
62% (02:16) correct 
