The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer call

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, context is everything! Don't get caught in the trap of applying a one-size-fits-all rule.

Think about it. In human affairs--the business world, the political realm, social movements, etc.--there really is no true "always" or "never" statement. The human realm is one of exceptions. This is precisely why extreme statements on these issues are suspect. There are general trends, of course--most scientists would say that evolution is scientifically accepted, most people flying for business fly first class, most environmentalists are politically liberal, etc. All of those and many other similar statements are perfectly true with "most" but would be false with "all."

By contrast, the natural sciences and mathematics are realms were things frequently are always or never true.
No multiple of 12 is a prime number.
A positive electrical charge is always attracted to a negative charge.
When an object is accelerating, this acceleration always indicates the presence of an unbalanced force.
Soft animal tissue (i.e. not bone, teeth, shell, etc.) never fossilizes.
Those may be "extreme" sounding statements, but they are perfectly true.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hello mikemcgarry,

This makes a lot of sense Mike. Thank you for your patience

Regards

The only phrase that tricked me is "fatty tissue, which does not fossilize" and I went for D with which also I was not satisfied. But as we need to pick from the given choices I picked D. C seems to me countering the premise. If humps do not fossilize, then how they found fossil without hump?

D doesn't solve the issue why the fossil doesn't have the hump though it is in the painting, therefore, it is incorrect.

I don't understand why (C) is the correct answer here. after reading the prompt, I was looking for something that is exactly the opposite of what (C) says.
What am I missing here?

Did you read the exchange between mikemcgarry and gmatexam439 discussing choice (C)?

If that (or the other discussion posted so far) did not help, could you please clarify why you were looking for the opposite of what (C) says? That could help us address your specific doubt.

ChiranjeevSingh, egmat

I am confused between C and D.
D is talking about giant deer as mentioned in the argument. Now if we suppose that we are living in 2020 and the deer existed till 2010. The paintings were carved in 2009. So, they must have seen the deer and then painted it. So, the painting must be accurate right?
I tried negating both the options and D seems to me a better choice than C.
If the painting was carved in 2011, then the animal is already extinct. How can we say for sure that the painting is not inaccurate.

luckyatc

Hi

Let me try to address your query.

In completing the argument, we must choose that answer option which best fits all the facts (or, premises) given in the stimulus, not just a few or one. Let us consider option (D).

(D) the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago.

It is true that the paintings were probably made after looking at the animal. However, how does this explain the fact that the fossilized remains of the deer found do not show any such hump as is shown in the paintings? Think of this as a kind of paradox resolution question. Therefore, option (D) does not adequately complete the argument being made. Now let us consider option (C).

(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize.

Now, this clearly explains how the paintings have humps while the fossils do not. This, therefore, brings together all the premises presented in the argument and is hence a much better answer than option (D).

Hope this helps.

In CR Questions we must avoid answers that require us taking an additional logical leap which is not clearly stated in the question.

Your assumption, 'it could be at a time when the deers had a hump which could have disappeared progressively' is not given to us in the question at all. Thus you will be introducing additional information into the question prompt, which you shouldn't do.

The answer to CR questions should be clear and be able to fit into the question prompt without making any additional logical leap.

Paintings say hump but fossils say no hump. But there’s no reason to say paintings are wrong [and therefore, deer actually did have hump] because what if there’s a difference between what was drawn and what was fossilized? What if these animals weren’t the same animal?

(A) some prehistoric cave paintings in France also depict other animals as having a hump
This doesn’t shed light on the animal we’re talking about or draw a connection. This can’t be an assumption that can be drawn.

(B) fossils of the giant deer are much more common in Ireland than in France
This doesn’t explain the discrepancy. Doesn’t matter where they’re more prevalent. We want to know why there’s a gap in knowledge between paintings and fossils.

(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize
Okay. So the humps are made of some stuff that doesn’t fossilize? They won’t show up in fossils? But I guess this could mean, when the paintings were made, the painters saw that the humps were there and drew it. But when these animals died, everything else remained but the humps. This makes sense. Let’s see if there’s anything else more convincing.

(D) the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago
Regardless of when it was painted, why is there a difference? “Prehistoric cave paintings” could almost be argued to say that this happened well before the 16k period as well. But regardless, C is better.

(E) only one currently existing species of deer has any anatomical feature that even remotely resembles a hump
We don’t care about what’s current out there. We want to know why there was a difference between the paintings and the fossils. Out of scope.

Passage analysis

The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland about 16,000 years ago.

A certain species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland.
The species became extinct around 16,000 years ago.

Prehistoric cave paintings in France depict this animal as having a large hump on its back.

The prehistoric cave paintings in France show this animal with a large hump on its back.

Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump.

But the fossilized remains of this do not bear any signs of the hump.

Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard, since __________.

In spite of this there is no reason to believe that the cave paintings are inaccurate in showing the hump, because_____________.


Conclusion

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the pre-historic cave paintings in France depicting

the Giant deer as having a large hump on its back, even though the fossils of the animal do not

show any hump.

Pre-thinking

Strengthen Framework

Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the strengthen framework:

What new information will help us believe more in the conclusion



The pre-historic cave paintings in France depicting the Giant deer as having a large hump on its back, are accurate



Given that:
The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland about 16,000 years ago

Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump


Thought process

Understand the author’s line of reasoning

The author here refers to two pieces of evidence while discussing whether the giant deer had a hump on its back or not.

One is the pre-historic cave paintings in France---> shows hump on the back of the giant deer

Two are the fossils of the Giant deer--->show no hump on the back of the giant deer.

Despite the evidence from fossils, the author considers the pre-historic cave paintings accurate in showing the hump.

Maybe the hump part of the animal is not a part of the fossils? May be the hump part is such that it doesn’t get fossilized in the first place?

Strengthener



So, if an answer option provides us with information that indicates that the hump part cannot be a part of a fossil, then such a statement increases our belief in the conclusion.

Which answer do you think is in line with our pre-thinking

The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland about 16,000 years ago. Prehistoric cave paintings in France depict this animal as having a large hump on its back. Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump. Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard, since __________.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) some prehistoric cave paintings in France also depict other animals as having a hump

Irrelevant, the animal in question is the now-extinct species of wild deer.

(B) fossils of the giant deer are much more common in Ireland than in France

Irrelevant…it would be silly to conclude that the cave paintings are accurate b/c there are more fossils in Ireland…suppose there only one such fossil in France…that could be all that’s needed to validate the conclusion (provided it provides some sort of substantive supporting evidence)

(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize

Correct! Now we understand why we didn’t see any humps in the fossils.

(D) the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago

It seems the suggestion here is that the paintings ARE inaccurate perhaps because the deer lived in Ireland about 16K years ago. Well, then why conclude that the paintings are accurate?

(E) only one currently existing species of deer has any anatomical feature that even remotely resembles a hump

Irrelevant.

The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland about 16,000 years ago. Prehistoric cave paintings in France depict this animal as having a large hump on its back. Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump. Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard, since __________.

(A) some prehistoric cave paintings in France also depict other animals as having a hump
(B) fossils of the giant deer are much more common in Ireland than in France
(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize
(D) the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago
(E) only one currently existing species of deer has any anatomical feature that even remotely resembles a hump

This is a Complete the Theme Question Type.
Strategy to Solve such questions: We have a paradox in the question. The Giant deer that lived 16,000 years ago were depicted as having humps in prehistoric paintings. But the fossils do not show any hump. The author says that the paintings cannot be called inaccurate. This means that we have to find an option that would give us the missing link to the puzzle. An option that would justify the paintings. 

The argument gives us the following details
The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland about 16,000 years ago.
Prehistoric cave paintings in France depict this animal as having a large hump on its back
However, Fossils of this animal, do not show any hump
Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard since?

We need to find an option that justifies the paintings. An option that would show why the animals are depicted as having humps, when the fossils show otherwise.

Option A- Just because there are other prehistoric paintings that depict other animals as having a hump, does not justify that the cave paintings are accurate.

Option B- fossils of the giant deer are much more common in Ireland than in France- This comparison is irrelevant and does not give us a reason as to why the paintings can still be considered accurate.


Option C- animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize- This tells us that the paintings were accurate. The reason why the humps were found in the paintings and not found in the fossils is because the humps do not fossilize. The humps were a part of the animals as shown in the paintings but fossils do not show any humps because humps do not fossilize.

Option D- the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago
The cave paintings were painted well before 16000 years ago and depict these animals as having a large hump on their backs. This still does not tell us why why the fossils of these animals do not show any hump.
Option E - only one currently existing species of deer has any anatomical feature that even remotely resembles a hump
Again, this does not tell us why the paintings can still be accurate

Therefore this leaves us with option C as the correct answer.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

hello TooLong150 you meant "paintings were correct?" please see highlighted part on your post

dear verbal experts, mikemcgarry, GMATNinja what will be correct logical opposite of option C?

"animal humps are not composed of fatty tissue, which fossilize"?

or

"animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which fossilize"

or

"animal humps are not composed of fatty tissue, which dose not fossilize"

HERE WE GO!

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant deer lived in Ireland about 16,000 years ago. Prehistoric cave paintings in France depict this animal as having a large hump on its back. Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump. Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard, since __________.

We need something realistic possibility that is able to clarify the mismatch between fossils and depictions.

(A) some prehistoric cave paintings in France also depict other animals as having a hump > irrelevant, stem is about deer
(B) fossils of the giant deer are much more common in Ireland than in France > irrelevant - it can be found in Azerbaijan or in Hungary also but doesn't make sense
(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize > AHA> This clearly concludes the sentence that this fatty tissue is disposed after some time..
(D) the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago > incorrect
(E) only one currently existing species of deer has any anatomical feature that even remotely resembles a hump > irrelevant

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.