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

why not D?
If the paintings were made well before 16000 years ago, it could be at a time when the deers had a hump which could have disapeared progressively.

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.

Hi mikemcgarry,

Isn't option C refuting the premise: Fossils are found without a hump.

Argument is pretty straightforward that paintings are not incorrect even though we have fossils without hump.

Please help!

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond

My friend, many students labor under the misconception that ALL outside information is irrelevant to the GMAT CR. It's true that one doesn't need specific knowledge of the topic--in this instance, the giant deer--but one definitely has to have a sense of how the real world works. Think about it. Why does the GMAT ask Critical Reasoning questions? The GMAT has this question precisely because managers in the real world need to evaluate arguments of all kinds every day. In order to be successful on the GMAT CR, you have to have a keen sense of the business world and you need to have a grasp of the basic scientific facts that everyone learns in school. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

Choice (C) does NOT refute the premise. Fossils are made of bone. Bone, the only rock-like part of the body, is the only part that endures like rock for centuries, even millennia. By contrast, the humps that these giant deer had were "fatty tissue, which doos not fossilize." Much in the same way, if you looked, say, at the skeleton of a camel, you wouldn't see the spine curve up into the humps. The humps of a camel are a real anatomical feature that we can see, but this feature is not reflected in the skeleton.

The live animal, whether the ancient giant deer or the modern camel, has the fatty humps we can see: they are part of the living animal. Ancient cave painters, seeing the living giant deer, would have seen its hump. When the animal dies and rots away, so only the rock-like bones of the fossil are left, no hump would be visible on either animal. Thus, the animal really has a hump and the fossil doesn't.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thank you mikemcgarry for the quick response.

But isn't the language used in the option bit extreme -- "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize". Maybe a better structure would have been such as "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize EASILY".

This creates a lot of difference. I understand that we need to use outside information smartly, but we need to be wary of "exaggerated options" also.

Please elucidate.

Regards

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

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.

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 __________.

(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,

I think I can help you with why and how we can eliminate D (the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago)...


You might be mixing the 2 premises and thus getting confused...

Premise 1 - 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.

Premise 2 - Prehistoric cave paintings in France depict this animal as having a large hump on its back.

Premise 3 - Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump.

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


Here, we are finding a missing premise... and thus an assumption... and If you review closely, you will observe the that -

1. We are told to find an assumption that ties the cave painting in France, and the fossils.
2. Option D, gives the "well before 16,000" years --> the "well before" term is a bit vague, --> we don't know when the deers went extinct in France, and we also don't know the exact time the cave paintings were done...there are 2 scenarios -
   
   • it might be that, the deers went extinct 30000 years ago, and the painting was done 35,000 years ago by looking at the deer (which will strengthen the argument)
   • it might be that, the deers went extinct 30000 years ago, and the painting was done 20,000 years ago (which will weaken the argument) --> An assumption can't be a weakener...

So, option D is a trap choice, which confuses readers by mixing aspects from different premises - 1 & 2...

Also, if you read the argument, you will see that the LOGICAL GAP is between -
"cave paintings, with hump in France" & "Fossils without hump" --> so naturally, we need to find an option that connects them...

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 __________.

Hello, people. Let's get into this! The passage basically starts off by saying we have an extinct animal species that used to live in Ireland 16,000 years ago. That ancient cave paintings in another part of the world show this animal to have a large hump (I imagine something similar to a camel) on its back. The fossil bones though don't show this. That being said, it doesn't mean the paintings are wrong because...

We're basically asked to look for a reason that ties this all together.

(A) some prehistoric cave paintings in France also depict other animals as having a hump
Not what we're looking for. This doesn't seem related to the passage or even explain why the paintings are accurate when it comes to the specific animal we're concerned with.

(B) fossils of the giant deer are much more common in Ireland than in France
Nope. Knowing that there are more fossils of this extinct animal in Ireland doesn't speak to the hump not showing in fossils issue or the accuracy of the paintings.

(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize
We have a winner. This one succinctly explains why an animal with a hump may not leave fossils that show it.

(D) the cave paintings of the giant deer were painted well before 16,000 years ago
This is an interesting one. I'll admit that. I guess it can tempt people because some may say this proves the paintings were taken clearly when the animal was still alive and people would clearly know what they had seen in real life with their own eyes. I can understand that... but even then, these paintings were in France. The passage, however, talks about how this species lived in Ireland. It also doesn't explain why the fossils don't show any sign of a hump.

(E) only one currently existing species of deer has any anatomical feature that even remotely resembles a hump­
Nope. If anything this would go against the passage because it gives a sense it's unlikely any species of deer therefore had a large hump. We're looking for something to increase the likelihood that the GIANT DEER species did in fact have a large hump and make sense of the fossil issue.