GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 06 Dec 2019, 03:26

### 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

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

# The true scientific significance of a group of unusual

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 179
Location: MI
The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Dec 2019, 10:17
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (02:34) correct 58% (02:50) wrong based on 84 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott's own classification. Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment. His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source.

(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.

(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.

(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim.

(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.

Source: Nova GMAT

Originally posted by asandeep on 26 Dec 2003, 08:38.
Last edited by nightblade354 on 01 Dec 2019, 10:17, edited 4 times in total.
Completely overhauled the question
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 725
Location: Florida
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2003, 08:48
man, it tool around 3 mins to understand the language, still I am not sure. but came onto something.

is it A??
CEO
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 3356
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2003, 10:36
A). B says that the evidence is "unverifiable". I don't think there is any allusion to the fact that it is unverifiable...
Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 179
Location: MI
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2003, 15:28
A

The language of A is really difficult to understand.
More often then not, I have observered that options with real difficult language tend to be right
Of course, can't depend on such a strategy..
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 725
Location: Florida
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2003, 15:46
asandeep wrote:
:yes A

The language of A is really difficult to understand.
More often then not, I have observered that options with real difficult language tend to be right
Of course, can't depend on such a strategy..

heeee huuu... to an extent, guessing, educated, works
Intern
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 8
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2016, 04:17
I' pretty confident that a is answer.
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 864
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2019, 08:11
1
OA added and bumping for further discussion
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1048
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2019, 05:07

OA added and bumping for further discussion

Hi can you please explain the answer in detail. I took a lot time to solve this question still got it wrong. I chose B.

An official explanation will be of immense help also please share your reasoning for this question.
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 864
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2019, 10:25
arvind910619 wrote:

OA added and bumping for further discussion

Hi can you please explain the answer in detail. I took a lot time to solve this question still got it wrong. I chose B.

An official explanation will be of immense help also please share your reasoning for this question.

Hi, I do not have a ton of time right now to explain this one. If this link isn't sufficient, let me know I can break it down later in the week: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t2213.html
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Intern
Joined: 26 Nov 2019
Posts: 5
Re: The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2019, 12:29
1
This is how I got it right -

Structure of the argument:
Conclusion: the significance of Charles Walcott's finding is in its reflection of recent classification, not in his own findings.
Premise: Charles Walcott is prominent.
Restated conclusion (indicated by "thus"): Charles Walcott only confirmed what was already given.

(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source. // Source of the evidence is Charles Walcott. Correct.

(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions. // There is only one piece of evidence. Incorrect.

(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed. // There is only one premise; both conclusions support each other. Incorrect.

(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim. // The argument did not deny the opposite of the claim (e.g. denying that Charles Walcott did not confirm the classifications). Incorrect.

(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion. // There is no discussion about past/present/social/political aspects. Out of scope. Incorrect.
Yale Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 138
GPA: 3
The true scientific significance of a group of unusual  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2019, 04:31
Here's an Explanation.

The first sentence talks about the importance of a group of Fossils discovered by CW.
The importance of these Fossils is more likely to be explained on a later classification (Perhaps the Species/Genus etc.) than on CW's original classification.

The Second Sentence says a bit about CW.
CW was a prominent member of a Council/Association/ etc.

The Third, where the reasoning lies, says-
CW's classification, thus, only might have confirmed the council's take on the classification of the fossil.

I tried to dig a little deeper and understood the structure here.
Being a Prominent member probably meant CW's discoveries (and classifications) were already what the Council(Establishment) knew was true.

(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source. What this really means that the Conclusion (That the importance of the fossils is more likely explained in later classifications) is simply based on information about the background of CW.
The true scientific significance of a group of unusual   [#permalink] 02 Dec 2019, 04:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by