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 __________.

(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

C



D could be easily refuted by an argument - that may be the painting depict some other species of deer (which lived in the different time period) rather than the one in question. C is best suited here.

I think C is pretty straightforward on this one.

(C) seems to be the best choice.

C it is ....



This is strictly not recommended on the actual GMAT.. you should always read all the choices....

Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I came across this question in the 2nd Verbal Guide and I wanted to see if others agree with my reasoning.

I ultimately picked C for this question:

A. The fact that some prehistoric cave paintings depict other animals with humps doesn't necessarily mean that that:

1. The paintings are in fact correct - these depictions of other animals could actually all be incorrect. This would weaken the argument instead of add support.
2. These paintings provide a strong reason as to why the fossils have no hump.

B. Just because fossils are more common in Ireland than in France doesn't mean that the paintings are correct. In fact, it would provide a reason to suggest otherwise. You could read into it and say that since there are fewer fossils in France, there is a chance that the painters were not as familiar with the animals and their depictions were actually incorrect. Either way, this answer choice does not give us a good reason to believe that the paintings are possibly accurate.

C. This is the correct answer. In this case, the answer choice gives us a good reason as to why we didn't see humps in the fossil remains. This also gives us a good reason to believe that the paintings could be correct.

D. If the cave paintings were painted well before the extinction of these animals, it just means they were painted when some of them were still alive. This answer choice doesn't give us any indication as to whether the paintings were incorrect or correct.

E. Even if there is only one currently existing species of deer that has the hump, this doesn't tell us anything about the cave paintings. This answer is irrelevant and is thus incorrect.

Just curious if option A had "All" instead of "some" would it be a contender its an easy C in this case!

which-of-following-most-logically-completes-the-argument-33561.html

Which of following most logically completes the argument?

The last members of a now-extinct species of a European wild deer called the giant dear 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 ______.

Notes
Ancient deer lived somewhere.
Paintings show deer with hump.
Fossils no hump.
C: paintings not inaccurate,
because

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

Wrong:
Other animals Out of scope

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

Wrong: incidence of Fossils are not an issue in argument

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

Correct: People saw animal with hump, but Fossils did not capture it.
Negating Answer weakens argument, because it shows that Fossils would have captured the hump, but didn't and Therfore the paintings were inaccurate.

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

Wrong, because it shows that the painters did not capture the correct animal. This weakens the argument.

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

Wrong :
Out of scope: we aren't taking about currently existing species of deer.

Also the focus is on the hump, being in the fossil or not. So C is better option than D.

C it is- if humps cant turn into fossils => cant prove paintings are incorrect.

Subscribe to Our YouTube Channel - get 7 Days of GMAT Club Tests