Last visit was: 26 Apr 2026, 23:14 It is currently 26 Apr 2026, 23:14
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 (Hard)|   Weaken|                     
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 942
Own Kudos:
214
 [1]
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 942
Kudos: 214
 [1]
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 17 Jul 2021, 07:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.
Yes this certainly weakens the argument if a connection is established it is against the view of the author

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
Out of context

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
Out of context

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.
This can be infered ffrom the argument

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.
Similar reasoning as A
Hence IMO A
Thanks :)
avatar
Finster27
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2021
Last visit: 09 Apr 2022
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 19
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo Updated on: 20 Jul 2021, 04:19
Originally posted by Finster27 on 20 Jul 2021, 03:01.
Last edited by Finster27 on 20 Jul 2021, 04:19, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat

Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient
ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied.
Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with
modern, non-forager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists' strategy?
(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are
absent from other types of societies.
(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
(D) Many anthropologistswho study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient
societies on the basis of their studies.
(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are
importantly different from ancient forager societies.

First of all the conclusion of this passage is:

The strategy to study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers, is flawed.

In shortened form, the conclusion is: The given strategy used by anthropologists is flawed.

Now. coming to option D, there is a problem with option D: it either goes against the information presented in the passage or does not affect the conclusion.

Let's understand the two cases:

Case 1: When we say that drawing inferences about a population is same as learning about that population.
This is most plausible understanding of "inferences" used in option D. IF you are studying modern societies and saying that you are learning about ancient ancestors, then in all probability, you are drawing inferences about ancestors based on your observation of modern societies.
If we understand the meaning of "inferences" as such, then option D goes against the first statement of the passage:
"Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers"

Since option D goes against the information presented in the passage, it is incorrect.

Case 2: when we say "drawing inferences" is different from learning
In this case, what we are saying is that anthropologists are learning about ancient ancestors but they are not drawing inferences about them.

In such a case, option D does not affect the conclusion because the conclusion talks about a strategy to learn about ancient ancestors. The conclusion says that this strategy is flawed. Whether anthropologists draw inferences or not does not affect the conclusion as long as they learn about ancient ancestors from the study.

Does this help?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
Show more


egmat In Case 2 what is the difference between learning about ancient foragers and not drawing inferences about them

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
Finster27
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2021
Last visit: 09 Apr 2022
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 19
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo Updated on: 20 Jul 2021, 03:41
Originally posted by Finster27 on 20 Jul 2021, 03:30.
Last edited by Finster27 on 20 Jul 2021, 03:41, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
The conclusion is that the strategy of studying modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors has a flaw -- and the flaw is that forager societies are extremely varied. Why is this a flaw?

  • If some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in order to learn about ancient foragers, this implies that those anthropologists believe that what is true of modern-day foragers is generally true of ancient foragers.
  • But what if forager societies are extremely varied? This might suggest that even if two groups are both forager societies, those groups might not actually share common characteristics.
  • This, in turn, calls into question the anthropologists' belief that what is true of one group of foragers is generally true of another group of foragers.

Quote:
(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.
Choice (A) reassures us that, even if forager societies are extremely varied, they are still likely to share a number of important features. This suggests that we can learn about ancient foragers by studying modern foragers, even if those two groups have many differences. Thus, the flaw presented in the conclusion is not actually a flaw, and the criticism is not valid. Keep choice (A).

Quote:
(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
We are trying to determine whether studying modern-day societies of foragers to learn about our ancient forager ancestors is a flawed strategy. The fact given in choice (B) neither supports nor weakens the author's argument. Thus, choice (B) can be eliminated.

Quote:
(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
Again, we are trying to determine if the author's criticism is valid. The fact that all anthropologists study modern-day societies has no impact on the author's argument, so choice (C) should be eliminated.

Quote:
(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.
The argument criticizes the strategy employed by some anthropologists. It makes no difference how many anthropologists use that strategy. Choice (D) does not weaken the criticism.

Quote:
(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.
The argument is that modern-day forager societies and ancient forager societies are so different that anthropologists cannot learn about one by studying the other. This statement strengthens that criticism by stressing that modern-day forager societies--even those that have not had significant contact with modern societies--are importantly different from ancient forager societies.

So (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.
Show more

Hi GMATNinja, Iam finding it difficult to eliminate D option here, my reasoning was that since the anthropologists are not drawing inferences, that means they aren't following their strategy because after all what their strategy is to study about modern forager societies and infer about ancient societies, which should weaken the criticism that the strategy is flawed, as whole basis to make criticism was on the fact that the societies are varied.

Also could you elaborate your explanation as to how you took this explanation to numbers, as you said it won't matter how many anthropologists follow this strategy

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
Finster27
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2021
Last visit: 09 Apr 2022
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 19
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 20 Jul 2021, 03:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma, could you help me in this question please, Iam finding it difficult to eliminate D option here, my reasoning is that since the anthropologists are not drawing inferences, that means they aren't following their strategy because after all what their strategy is to study about modern forager societies and infer about ancient societies which should weaken the criticism that the strategy is flawed, as whole basis to make criticism was on the fact that the societies are varied.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 24 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,818
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,132
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,818
 [1]
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 23 Aug 2021, 11:09
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Finster27

Hi GMATNinja, Iam finding it difficult to eliminate D option here, my reasoning was that since the anthropologists are not drawing inferences, that means they aren't following their strategy because after all what their strategy is to study about modern forager societies and infer about ancient societies, which should weaken the criticism that the strategy is flawed, as whole basis to make criticism was on the fact that the societies are varied.

Also could you elaborate your explanation as to how you took this explanation to numbers, as you said it won't matter how many anthropologists follow this strategy

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
Let's start by identifying the criticism that we are trying to weaken: "A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied." So basically, the criticism is saying that anthropologists can't draw conclusions about ancient foragers based on studies of modern-day foragers because forager societies are extremely varied.

Let's now take a look at answer choice (D).

Quote:
(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.
Show more
The problem with (D) is that these "many anthropologists" would not be subject to the criticism in the passage. They are not drawing conclusions about ancient foragers based on modern-day foragers, so the criticism simply doesn't apply to them.

However, this doesn't weaken the criticism. Keep in mind that the criticism is attacking anthropologists who do draw conclusions about ancient foragers. The fact that many anthropologists don't do this has no effect on the conclusion.

As an example to help clarify this point, consider the following statement: "bacon-flavored desserts are really gross." If I replied "many desserts are not bacon-flavored," that would not weaken the argument, because the argument is specifically about bacon-flavored desserts. In other words, the statement is irrelevant to the argument.

For the same reason, answer choice (D) does not weaken the criticism about anthropologists.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
ArnauG
User avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2022
Last visit: 14 Oct 2023
Posts: 284
Own Kudos:
43
Given Kudos: 199
Posts: 284
Kudos: 43
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 17 Jun 2023, 07:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The correct answer is (A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.

This statement weakens the criticism made against the anthropologists' strategy because it suggests that despite the variability among modern forager societies due to contact with nonforager societies, there are still important commonalities that can be observed. If all forager societies throughout history share significant features that distinguish them from other types of societies, studying modern-day forager societies can still provide valuable insights into our ancient forager ancestors. This weakens the argument that the strategy is flawed due to the variability among modern forager societies.
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 677
Own Kudos:
177
Given Kudos: 6,488
Location: India
Posts: 677
Kudos: 177
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 16 Mar 2025, 21:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi experts KarishmaB GMATNinja MartyMurray

Option D = "Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies."

I used following reasoning to reject option D: We don't know "ancient societies" mentioned in this option are talking about foragers or non-foragers. We know clearly from the first line of argument that "some anthropologists...ancient ancestors who were also foragers." Thus, option D provides us half-baked information which is not useful to weaken the argument.

Please let me know if this reasoning is wrong somewhere.
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,852
Own Kudos:
7,125
 [1]
Given Kudos: 213
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,852
Kudos: 7,125
 [1]
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 18 Mar 2025, 19:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan
Option D = "Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies."

I used following reasoning to reject option D: We don't know "ancient societies" mentioned in this option are talking about foragers or non-foragers. We know clearly from the first line of argument that "some anthropologists...ancient ancestors who were also foragers." Thus, option D provides us half-baked information which is not useful to weaken the argument.

Please let me know if this reasoning is wrong somewhere.
Show more
That's not a great reason to eliminate (D).

A choice about anthropologists studying "ancient societies" could weaken the argument. After all ancient forager societies are "ancient societies."

So, information on how anthropologists study "ancient societies" could affect the strength of the argument.

A better reason to eliminate (D) is that, even if MANY anthropologists do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies of modern foragers, we still know from the passage that SOME other anthropologist DO draw inferences about ancient foragers from studies of modern foragers.

So, the issue with (D) is that it's about people other than the ones discussed in the argument. So, it has no effect on the strength of the argument.
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 677
Own Kudos:
177
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,488
Location: India
Posts: 677
Kudos: 177
 [1]
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 18 Mar 2025, 20:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks MartyMurray.
Great explanation and I am clear now.
MartyMurray
agrasan
Option D = "Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies."

I used following reasoning to reject option D: We don't know "ancient societies" mentioned in this option are talking about foragers or non-foragers. We know clearly from the first line of argument that "some anthropologists...ancient ancestors who were also foragers." Thus, option D provides us half-baked information which is not useful to weaken the argument.

Please let me know if this reasoning is wrong somewhere.
That's not a great reason to eliminate (D).

A choice about anthropologists studying "ancient societies" could weaken the argument. After all ancient forager societies are "ancient societies."

So, information on how anthropologists study "ancient societies" could affect the strength of the argument.

A better reason to eliminate (D) is that, even if MANY anthropologists do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies of modern foragers, we still know from the passage that SOME other anthropologist DO draw inferences about ancient foragers from studies of modern foragers.

So, the issue with (D) is that it's about people other than the ones discussed in the argument. So, it has no effect on the strength of the argument.
Show more
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 5,632
Own Kudos:
33,435
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,632
Kudos: 33,435
Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effo 26 Sep 2025, 03:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A classic GMAT Critical Reasoning "Weaken" question that can be tricky if you don't spot what the criticism is really saying. Let me walk you through how to approach this systematically.

Understanding the Argument Structure:

Let's first map out what's happening here. The passage presents:
- The Strategy: Anthropologists study modern foragers to learn about ancient foragers
- The Criticism: This strategy has flaws because (1) forager societies are extremely varied, and (2) all modern forager societies have had contact with non-forager societies

So we need to find something that makes this criticism less convincing - something that shows the anthropologists' strategy might actually work despite these problems.

Key Insight to Solve:

Here's what you need to see: The criticism is saying modern foragers can't teach us about ancient ones because they're too different from each other AND they've been influenced by contact with modern non-forager societies. To weaken this, we need to show that despite these issues, there's still something valuable we can learn.

Evaluating the Answer Choices:

Let's think about what would actually weaken this criticism:

Answer A: "All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common..."
This is powerful! If ALL forager societies (ancient and modern) share important common features, then the variation doesn't matter as much. Even if modern foragers vary and have outside contact, they still retain these core features that can teach us about ancient foragers. This directly addresses the criticism.

Answer B: What happened to ancient societies doesn't tell us whether studying modern ones is useful - irrelevant.

Answer C: What all anthropologists study is beside the point - we care specifically about this forager strategy.

Answer D: Wait - if many anthropologists DON'T draw inferences about ancient societies, that actually supports the criticism that the strategy is flawed!

Answer E: This makes the criticism stronger by saying even isolated modern foragers are different from ancient ones.

The Answer: A is correct because it provides a bridge between modern and ancient foragers that survives despite the variation and contact issues.

Notice how the correct answer doesn't deny the criticism's facts (variation exists, contact happened) but shows why these facts don't invalidate the research strategy. This is a common pattern in Weaken questions - you're not proving the criticism false, just showing it doesn't lead to the conclusion.

---

Want to master the complete framework for tackling Weaken questions and see alternative approaches that save time? You can check out the step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT where you'll discover the systematic approach for identifying and attacking the core assumptions in any argument. You can also explore other GMAT official questions with detailed solutions on Neuron for structured practice that builds your accuracy consistently.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
506 posts
bhanu29
361 posts