GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Paleobiologists frequently turn to studying organi

Question

Paleobiologists frequently turn to studying organisms that are believed to have evolved very little since the prehistoric era, such as the platypus and the crocodile, to learn about prehistoric life. Such animals are often called “living fossils”. However, this strategy is flawed; any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the paleobiologists’ strategy?

A. Many paleobiologists who study contemporary “living fossils” do not extrapolate information about prehistoric organisms from what they learn through their studies.

B. Most prehistoric organisms either went extinct or evolved into radically different forms.

C. All paleobiologists study one or the other kind of modern organism.

D. All “living fossils” continue to share important features with prehistoric organisms, features absent in other, contemporary organisms.

E. Even those organisms that have evolved very little since the prehistoric era are essentially different from the prehistoric organisms.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

Explanation:

Mind-map:  “Living fossils” are organisms that are believed to have evolved very little since prehistoric era -> paleobiologists study “living fossils” to learn about prehistoric life -> any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution -> paleobiologists’ strategy is flawed (conclusion)

Missing-link:  Between any organism alive today having had a significant impact of evolution and the conclusion that paleobiologists’ strategy is flawed

Expectation from the correct answer choice:  To suggest that paleobiologists’ strategy to study “living fossils” may be useful to learn about prehistoric life
 
A. Trap. The argument is concerned with whether paleobiologists studying “living fossils” can actually learn about prehistoric life; so,  whether many paleobiologists draw any interference from their studies is just additional information  and does not weaken the argument. Further, “many paleobiologists” refers to only a part of all paleobiologists and is thus  limited in scope . Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

B. This answer choice, suggesting what happened to prehistoric organisms,  provides no information about the strategy of studying “living fossils”  to learn about prehistoric life; so, this answer choice is  just a statement of fact  and has no bearing on the argument. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

C. This answer choice, suggesting what paleobiologists do,  provides no information about the strategy of studying “living fossils”  to learn about prehistoric life; so, this answer choice is  just additional information  and has no bearing on the argument. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

D. Correct. This answer choice, suggesting that “living fossils” do share important features with prehistoric organisms, when such features are absent in other, contemporary organisms, indicates that  such features are peculiar, common characteristics of both “living fossils” today and prehistoric organisms  and that  paleobiologists studying “living fossils” can actually learn about prehistoric life ; hence, this answer choice indicates that the paleobiologists’ strategy is not flawed, thus weakening the conclusion. Because this answer choice weakens the conclusion, this answer choice is correct.

E. Trap. This answer choice, by suggesting that even “very little” evolution makes today’s organisms “essentially different” from the prehistoric organisms, indicates that  paleobiologists studying “living fossils” may not actually learn about prehistoric life, thus strengthening, rather than weakening , the conclusion. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

D is the best choice.

SohGMAT2020 · Answer

Paleobiologists frequently turn to studying organisms that are believed to have evolved very little since the prehistoric era, such as the platypus and the crocodile, to learn about prehistoric life. Such animals are often called “living fossils”. However, this strategy is flawed; any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era.

Here the strategy is flawed because the author says that any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era. If this point can be weakened, the criticism also weakens. Lets look at the options to see which one does so.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the paleobiologists’ strategy?

A. Many paleobiologists who study contemporary “living fossils” do not extrapolate information about prehistoric organisms from what they learn through their studies.  Eliminate A as this option does not give any info about whether there is any significant impact of evolution since the the prehistoric era

B. Most prehistoric organisms either went extinct or evolved into radically different forms.  We don't know whether most includes “living fossils”. And if so it will strengthen not weaken the criticism. Eliminate B

C. All paleobiologists study one or the other kind of modern organism.  Eliminate C as this option has no effect on the given argument

D. All “living fossils” continue to share important features with prehistoric organisms, features absent in other, contemporary organisms.  Correct as it weakens the argument that organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era 
 
E. Even those organisms that have evolved very little since the prehistoric era are essentially different from the prehistoric organisms.  This actually slightly strengthen the authors argument not weakens. Slightly because we don't know whether the difference is "significant" Eliminate E

rahuly2k2001 · Answer

A. Many paleobiologists who study contemporary “living fossils” do not extrapolate information about prehistoric organisms from what they learn through their studies. -->inconsistent with the passage as the passage clearly says that "Paleobiologists study “living fossils” to learn about prehistoric life"

B. Most prehistoric organisms either went extinct or evolved into radically different forms. -->irrelevant to our discussion here

C. All paleobiologists study one or the other kind of modern organism. -->irrelevant to our discussion here

D. All “living fossils” continue to share important features with prehistoric organisms, features absent in other, contemporary organisms. Correct as it weakens the argument that organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era

E. Even those organisms that have evolved very little since the prehistoric era are essentially different from the prehistoric organisms. -->this options strengthens the criticism. Incorrect

RohitSaluja · Answer

Lets analyse the argument, the author talks about paleobiologists who study animals that have evolved very little since pre-historic time in order to learn more about pre-historic period. The author concludes that the practice is flawed as any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era.

Assumption: In making the argument the author has assumed due to evolution of these living fossils there is nothing that can be learned about pre-historic times, but if that ain't true then it could seriously weaken the argument. Lets look at the options

A. Many paleobiologists who study contemporary “living fossils” do not extrapolate information about prehistoric organisms from what they learn through their studies.   Doesnot matter whether they extrapolate the information

B. Most prehistoric organisms either went extinct or evolved into radically different forms.   If this is true then it slightly supports the author argument that the practice is flawed

C. All paleobiologists study one or the other kind of modern organism.   This has no bearing on the argument

D. All “living fossils” continue to share important features with prehistoric organisms, features absent in other, contemporary organisms.   This aligns with our pre-thinkingm even if due to little evolution living fossil continue to share features, which are not present in contemport organisms, of prehistoric organism, then this activity isn't flawed, hence this weakens the author argument

E. Even those organisms that have evolved very little since the prehistoric era are essentially different from the prehistoric organisms.   This against strengthens the author argument, hence eliminate

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Paleobiologists frequently turn to studying organi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Paleobiologists frequently turn to studying organi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards