It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting

Question

It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area in Country X tens of thousands of years ago repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area. Archaeologists hypothesize that because the fires caused later plant growth on the land, the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species. Such actions, they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists’ claim?

A. Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes

B. Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave

C. Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters

D. Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies

E. Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Explanation

It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area in Country X tens of thousands of years ago repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area. Archaeologists hypothesize that because the fires caused later plant growth on the land, the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species. Such actions, they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

Archeologists have concluded the following:

Such actions (people occupying the Bax Cave area in Country X tens of thousands of years ago repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area), they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

That conclusion is supported by the following intermediate conclusion or hypothesis:

the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species

We see that archeologist have seen that the people set fires, hypothesized regarding why they set the fires, and arrived at a conclusion based on the hypothesis.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists’ claim?

A yes answer or no answer to the question presented by the correct answer will strenghen or weaken the case for the final conclusion.

It can do so by strenghtening or weakening the support for the main conclusion or the support for the intermediate conclusion, the hypothesis.

A. Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes

Regardless of whether the area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes, the passage says, "It is known ... that the hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area ... repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area."

So, it appears that the hunting people set fires regardless of whether all fires in the area were set by them.

Thus, what we know about the situation is not materially changed by a yes or no answer to this question.

Eliminate.

B. Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave

Regardless of whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave, the people discussed in the passage are "hunting people."

So, presumably, they did hunt.

In other words, the argument is not about whether they hunted. It's about what they did to optimize conditions for hunting. So, evidence indicating that they hunted would not help to support the conclusion.

Eliminate.

C. Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters

A yes or no answer to this question could weaken or strenghten the case for the hypothesis that "the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species."

After all, if the answer to this question is "Yes," then we have a possible alternative reason why they set the fires. It could be that they set the fires to drive prey out to attract other animals they sought. So, a yes answer weakens the case for the conclusion by indicating that something else could have been going on and thus casting doubt on the hypothesis that supports the main conclusion.

On the other hand, a no answer strengthens the case for the conclusion by serving to rule out a possible alternative reason for their setting fires. In other words, a no answer to this question serves to increase the probability that the hypothesis that the hunters set the fires to attract herbivorous prey species is correct and thus strengthens the argument.

Keep.

D. Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies

This choice is a little hard to eliminate since a yes answer to this question could seem to indicate that there may have been an alternative reason why the people occupying the Bax Cave area set the fires. Maybe they set them to get plants adapted to fire ecologies to grow.

However, (C) is a much better answer, and we can eliminate this choice because simple fact that they consumed such plants doesn't mean that they set fires to get such plants to grow.

In other words, if we think about this choice, we can see that the people could have consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies along with other plants. This choice doesn't ask whether they "preferred" to consume such plants or "needed" such plants. It's simply about whether they consumed the plants.

What if they did? Does that information mean that they set fires to get such plants to grow? Not really. All it means is that they ate plants that grew in areas where fire occurred. That information doesn't clearly indicate anything about planning or delaying gratification.

Eliminate.

E. Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago

Neither a yes nor a no answer to this question would materially strengthen or weaken the argument since the conclusion is about the people occupying the Bax Cave area.

Honestly, in a context other than a GMAT question we might take a yes answer to this question as evidence that people of that time in general had the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years and thus that the people occupying the Bax Cave area likely did too. At the same time, since we know that we're dealing with a GMAT question, we can make the call that a choice that involves such indirect and weak support isn't going to be the correct answer.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  C

Vyral2311 · Answer

Answer choice C feels flawed to me, It doesn't specify whether the "animals sought by hunters" refers to the predators that the human hunters were pursuing or human hunters wanted herbivores to come out so they can kill the preys!

VibhuAnurag · Answer

The answer is C.

A. Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes.
This information could be useful in understanding whether natural causes might have been responsible for the fires rather than deliberate human action. However, it doesn't directly address the claim about intentionally setting fires to attract prey.

B. Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave.
This could support the idea that hunting activities were indeed carried out in the area, but it doesn't specifically address the hypothesis that the fires were set to attract prey.

C. Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters.
This option is relevant as it investigates whether the fires resulted in the desired outcome - the attraction of prey. If animals sought prey driven out by fires, it could support the claim that the hunters set fires to attract herbivorous prey species.

D. Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies.
This option doesn't directly address the hypothesis regarding the purpose of setting fires. While it might provide interesting ecological information about the inhabitants, it doesn't directly evaluate the claim made by the archaeologists.

E. Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago.
Although understanding the mental capacity of ancient people is interesting, this option does not directly assess the archaeologists' claim about the purpose behind setting the fires.

sanebeyondone · Answer

Choice C also has another flaw. It uses the word "immediate". This contradicts what the passage says "...delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years."

Posted from my mobile device

bayareaboy65 · Answer

IMO - C is correct because if animals that hunters sought after came immediately after the fire, this would contradict the hypothesis that they had delayed gratification.

Azorahai_7 · Answer

Is the reasoning for C based on the fact that we are looking for evidence to EVALUATE the claim and support it?? because if it was infact to support then C makes no sense in the fact that there is no Delay in gratification.

sayan640 · Answer

GMATNinja   Bunuel   GMATGuruNY  Can you please explain this question

Posted from my mobile device

GMATGuruNY · Answer

I received a DM requesting that I comment.

Premise:
The hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area.
Conclusion:
Such actions are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

Assumption:
The purpose of the fires was LATER PLANT GROWTH and the subsequent attraction of herbivores and that there is thus a link between FIRE-SETTING and DELAYED GRATIFICATION.

This is an EVALUATE CR.
The answer choices to this type of CR often begin with the word  whether .
To make the situation clearer, omit this word when reading the answer choices.
With the word  whether  omitted, the correct answer choice will either strengthen or weaken the conclusion, enabling us to EVALUATE whether the conclusion is valid.

C, with the word  whether  omitted:
 In the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey. 
Implication:
The purpose of the fires was not LATER plant growth but the IMMEDIATE attraction of animals coming to seek prey, weakening the conclusion that the hunters had the mental capacity to delay gratification.

C

Rachitpaliwal10 · Answer

I agree , or does 'Herbivore Prey species' mean carnivore

GMATGuruNY · Answer

While it is KNOWN that the Bax Cave people repeatedly  set fire to the surrounding area , archaeologists only HYPOTHESIZE that the purpose was  to attract herbivorous prey species. 
A hypothesis is not a fact but a GUESS.
Option C suggests that this guess might be wrong: that the purpose of the fires was to attract a DIFFERENT type of animal -- the type would come  to seek prey driven out of dens and shelters .

jaindevaditya · Answer

Argument Breakdown:
Fact: Hunters in the Bax Cave area set fires repeatedly tens of thousands of years ago.

Hypothesis by Archaeologists: The fires were intentionally set to encourage plant growth, which would attract herbivorous animals. This implies that the hunters were thinking ahead and planning for the future.

Claim: The archaeologists argue that this behavior shows the mental capacity to delay gratification—i.e., they were willing to wait weeks, months, or even years for the payoff (herbivores attracted by the new plant growth).

Goal:
The goal is to find the answer choice that would most help in evaluating whether the archaeologists' claim about delayed gratification is valid.

Key Points to Focus On:

Delayed Gratification: The hunters supposedly set the fires with the long-term goal of attracting herbivores after new plant growth occurred.

Immediate vs. Delayed Benefit: For the archaeologists' claim to hold, the hunters must have been willing to wait for the plants to grow and attract herbivores. If there were immediate benefits from the fire, this could challenge the claim of delayed gratification.

Analyzing the Answer Choices:

(A) Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes.

Relevance: This is about whether fires could start naturally (due to lightning). But the archaeologists' claim is about intentional fire-setting, not accidental fires. Knowing about lightning doesn’t help evaluate the claim about deliberate actions for delayed benefits.
Not useful for evaluating the claim.

(B) Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave.

Relevance: This is about the presence of tools, but the claim we need to evaluate is about the purpose of setting fires and whether this demonstrates delayed gratification. Finding tools doesn’t address the issue of mental capacity for planning.
Not useful for evaluating the claim.

(C) Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters.

Relevance: This is directly relevant to the idea of delayed gratification. If animals were driven out of their shelters immediately after the fires, the hunters might have had a short-term benefit rather than needing to wait for plant growth to attract herbivores. This would weaken the archaeologists' claim that the hunters were demonstrating the ability to plan for future rewards.
Very useful for evaluating the claim because if there was an immediate benefit (prey driven out immediately after the fire), it would suggest that the hunters did not need to delay gratification.

(D) Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies.

Relevance: This discusses what the people might have eaten, but it doesn’t directly address the issue of whether the hunters were setting fires for the purpose of attracting prey in the long term. It’s more about plant consumption than hunting strategies.
Not useful for evaluating the claim.
(E) Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago.

Relevance: This addresses the broader question of whether other people from the same time period could delay gratification, but it doesn’t specifically help evaluate whether these hunters in the Bax Cave area were doing so. The archaeologists' claim is specific to this group, not others.
Not as useful for evaluating the specific claim.

Conclusion:
The correct answer is (C) because it directly addresses whether the hunters might have had immediate benefits from setting fires, which would challenge the idea that they were demonstrating the mental capacity to delay gratification. If the hunters could get prey immediately after the fire, then their actions would not necessarily demonstrate planning for the future or delaying gratification. Therefore, (C) is the most useful piece of information for evaluating the archaeologists' claim.

Posted from my mobile device

nikkimah · Answer

Can someone explain what this line means?
Archaeologists hypothesize that because the fires caused later plant growth on the land, the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species. Such actions, they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years.

Is it saying that because land would later have plant growth and herbivorous species would feed on those plants, so they attracted herbivorous prey species by setting fire inorder to kill those herbivorous species once they come out to feed on those plants? This is delayed gratification because plants are still not there and herbivorous species do not come out while herbivorous species come out by being attracted to the fire?
Can you also explain the answer choice? Hunters hunt herbivorous species or their prey species?
 GMATNinja   marty   karishma

Thanks

bb · Answer

Hi. What it says is that before the fire there was a forest with trees that herbivores were not attracted to. Then the fire would burn up the forest, and afterwards, new growth would appear and that would attract the herbivore animals. You can read that in the highlighted part of the text.

Sike_Gmat · Answer

You are right, Evaluating does not mean we must support the argument. We are just looking for additional information to judge wether an argument makes sense.
   Azorahai_7

Raman109 · Answer

It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting people occupying the Bax Cave area in Country X tens of thousands of years ago repeatedly set fire to the surrounding area. - Background info.

Archaeologists hypothesize that because the fires caused later plant growth on the land, the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species. - Reasoning for fires. Fires cause plant growth --> herbivores prey such as deers etc will come --> hunting people will kill them.

Such actions, they claim, are evidence for the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years. - this entire process may take time so it shows that hunting people the mental capacity to delay gratification.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the archaeologists’ claim? - what claim? "that hunting people the mental capacity to delay gratification."

A. Whether the Bax Cave area is susceptible to fires caused by lightning strikes - out of scope.

B. Whether remains can be found of hunting tools from tens of thousands of years ago in or near the Bax Cave - irrelevant.

C. Whether in the immediate aftermath of fires in the Bax Cave area, animals sought by hunters came to seek prey driven out of dens or other shelters
Yes - it means the claim is false. 
No. - it means claim is true.
Ok.

D. Whether people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago consumed plants adapted to fire ecologies - say the answer is yes, but it doesn't tie to the hunting people waiting for animals. May be they never waited and were just happy with plants. 
Say No. Then they must need to kill animals but when ? Immediately? that would mean the claim is false. or After weeks, months or years? that would mean that the claim is true. 
At best this option is out of scope. While it uses all the right words form the argument, it doesn't touch the core of the argument which is they waited for animals shows their cognitive ability. There is no linkage to animals here.

E. Whether the mental capacity to delay gratification for weeks, months, or even years was exhibited by contemporaries of the people occupying the Bax Cave tens of thousands of years ago - out of scope.

soumyab12 · Answer

Could an expert clarify this please? While it may not seem important for us to evaluate the argument, in general it has caused a lot of confusion which keeps derailing one from the end goal of the question.
When the passage says "hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species", does this mean the hunters wanted to prey on herbivores or does it mean they wanted to attract the animals that prey on herbivores and then hunt those animals (which are carnivores)?
And then extending to option C, "animals sought by hunters came to seek prey" seems to suggest that animals sought by hunters are indeed carnivores which came to seek prey that was driven out of shelters (the herbivores) or does it mean animals sought by hunters are herbivores who were driven out of caves and they came to seek their prey (which is plant and vegetation)?

GMATQuizMaster · Answer

Hi  SoumyaB  12,

Let me try to help.

1. What does " Herbivorous prey species" refer to? 
 
 "Herbivorous prey species" cannot refer to carnivores. 
 We are talking about some prey species - which type - herbivorous.  
 
 Any "prey species" would refer to the species that becomes prey - not the one that attacks.

2. Does the passage mean the hunters wanted to prey on herbivores? 
 
 The passage does not clarify the same. 
 Hunters wanted to attract herbivorous species - that is clear. But intent behind the same is not given:
 
 They may be trying to hunt these herbivorous species. 
 They may be trying to attract animals that prey on herbivores

3. What does choice C mean? 
 
  It states that animals sought by hunters were the ones that came to seek prey- indicating that hunters wanted predators - i.e., carnivores.

Hope that helps, 
 Regards

soumyab12 · Answer

Very helpful, thank you so much!

eaat · Answer

I'm not sure I understand "the hunters set the fires in order to attract herbivorous prey species."

Why did they do this? Is it to eat the prey that would come?

It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting

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

It is known from cave paintings and other evidence that the hunting

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