Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
05 Apr 2024, 12:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
62% (02:34) correct
38%
(02:42)
wrong
based on 1401
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Paleontologist: Scientists have used evidence about bone structure to infer that carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex had genomes - sets of genetic information in their DNA - much smaller than those of most modern mammals. Modern birds have genomes about the same size as those of carnivorous dinosaurs, from which they evolved. Therefore, the hypothesis that small genomes in birds were an evolutionary adaptation functioning to conserve energy for flight is probably false.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
A. Species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species.
B. Flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes.
C. Species with small genomes typically use energy much more efficienly than do closely related species with larger genomes.
D. Many animal species that lived in the period as Tyrannosaurus rex but were not ancestors of modern birds, also had relatively small genomes.
E. At least some flightless species that evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs and were ancestors to modern bird species had much larger genomes than modern birds have.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
A. Species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species.
B. Flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes.
C. Species with small genomes typically use energy much more efficienly than do closely related species with larger genomes.
D. Many animal species that lived in the period as Tyrannosaurus rex but were not ancestors of modern birds, also had relatively small genomes.
E. At least some flightless species that evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs and were ancestors to modern bird species had much larger genomes than modern birds have.
Question exposed a gap?
Take sectional Adaptive Quant, Verbal, or DI tests on GMAT Club and review the detailed score report.
Get started →
12 May 2024, 07:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Paleontologist: Scientists have used evidence about bone structure to infer that carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex had genomes - sets of genetic information in their DNA - much smaller than those of most modern mammals. Modern birds have genomes about the same size as those of carnivorous dinosaurs, from which they evolved. Therefore, the hypothesis that small genomes in birds were an evolutionary adaptation functioning to conserve energy for flight is probably false.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
the hypothesis that small genomes in birds were an evolutionary adaptation functioning to conserve energy for flight is probably false
The reasoning of the argument is basically the following. Birds evolved from dinosaurs that had small genomes. So, it's probable that the reason birds have small genomes is not that they evolved small genomes to conserve energy but simply that they evolved from ancestors that had small genomes and thus ended up with small genomes.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
This is a Strengthen question, and the correct answer will somehow help to support or confirm the conclusion.
A. Species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species.
This choice is interesting.
If species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species, then what we see is that, when animals have evolved from being flightless to flying, their genomes haven't become smaller.
While that information doesn't prove that birds didn't evolve relatively small genomes to conserve energy for flight, it helps to support that conclusion.
After all, if these other animals didn't evolve smaller genomes as they evolved to flying, then it could be that relatively small genomes aren't very helpful for flying.
Therefore, maybe birds didn't evolve small genomes to help with flying. In that case, it's quite possible that birds' genomes are relatively small just because their ancestors' genomes were relatively small.
So, this choice helps to confirm that the conclusion of the argument is correct.
Keep.
B. Flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes.
This choice weakens the support for the conclusion.
After all, if flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes, then we have other examples of flying animals with relatively small genomes. The fact that other flying animals also have relatively small genomes tends to indicate that flying animals evolve to have small genomes for some purpose that they all share, which could be to conserve energy for flight.
By supporting the conclusion that flying animals evolve to have small genomes to conserve energy for flight, this choice weakens rather than strengthens the case for the conclusion of the argument.
Eliminate.
C. Species with small genomes typically use energy much more efficienly than do closely related species with larger genomes.
If anything, this choice weakens the support for the conclusion.
After all, if this choice is true, then it make sense that birds would have evolved relatively small genomes to conserve energy for flight.
Of course, by indicating that that makes sense, this choice weighs against the conciusion of the argument.
Eliminate.
D. Many animal species that lived in the period as Tyrannosaurus rex but were not ancestors of modern birds, also had relatively small genomes.
This information about other animal species doesn't indicate whether birds evolved relatively small genomes to conserve energy or just retained small genomes from their ancestors.
After all, these other animals have no clear relationship with birds. They just happened to have small genomes.
Eliminate.
E. At least some flightless species that evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs and were ancestors to modern bird species had much larger genomes than modern birds have.
If anything, this choice slightly weakens the argument.
After all, if this choice is true, then flightless ancestors of some birds had larger genomes than those birds have.
That information indicates that some birds evolved to have genomes that are smaller than their flightless ancestors had, which in turn tends to indicate that those birds have relatively small genomes because they fly, and thus benefit from conserving energy, whereas their ancestors didn't fly.
That train of logic goes against the conclusion of the argument.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
the hypothesis that small genomes in birds were an evolutionary adaptation functioning to conserve energy for flight is probably false
The reasoning of the argument is basically the following. Birds evolved from dinosaurs that had small genomes. So, it's probable that the reason birds have small genomes is not that they evolved small genomes to conserve energy but simply that they evolved from ancestors that had small genomes and thus ended up with small genomes.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
This is a Strengthen question, and the correct answer will somehow help to support or confirm the conclusion.
A. Species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species.
This choice is interesting.
If species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species, then what we see is that, when animals have evolved from being flightless to flying, their genomes haven't become smaller.
While that information doesn't prove that birds didn't evolve relatively small genomes to conserve energy for flight, it helps to support that conclusion.
After all, if these other animals didn't evolve smaller genomes as they evolved to flying, then it could be that relatively small genomes aren't very helpful for flying.
Therefore, maybe birds didn't evolve small genomes to help with flying. In that case, it's quite possible that birds' genomes are relatively small just because their ancestors' genomes were relatively small.
So, this choice helps to confirm that the conclusion of the argument is correct.
Keep.
B. Flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes.
This choice weakens the support for the conclusion.
After all, if flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes, then we have other examples of flying animals with relatively small genomes. The fact that other flying animals also have relatively small genomes tends to indicate that flying animals evolve to have small genomes for some purpose that they all share, which could be to conserve energy for flight.
By supporting the conclusion that flying animals evolve to have small genomes to conserve energy for flight, this choice weakens rather than strengthens the case for the conclusion of the argument.
Eliminate.
C. Species with small genomes typically use energy much more efficienly than do closely related species with larger genomes.
If anything, this choice weakens the support for the conclusion.
After all, if this choice is true, then it make sense that birds would have evolved relatively small genomes to conserve energy for flight.
Of course, by indicating that that makes sense, this choice weighs against the conciusion of the argument.
Eliminate.
D. Many animal species that lived in the period as Tyrannosaurus rex but were not ancestors of modern birds, also had relatively small genomes.
This information about other animal species doesn't indicate whether birds evolved relatively small genomes to conserve energy or just retained small genomes from their ancestors.
After all, these other animals have no clear relationship with birds. They just happened to have small genomes.
Eliminate.
E. At least some flightless species that evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs and were ancestors to modern bird species had much larger genomes than modern birds have.
If anything, this choice slightly weakens the argument.
After all, if this choice is true, then flightless ancestors of some birds had larger genomes than those birds have.
That information indicates that some birds evolved to have genomes that are smaller than their flightless ancestors had, which in turn tends to indicate that those birds have relatively small genomes because they fly, and thus benefit from conserving energy, whereas their ancestors didn't fly.
That train of logic goes against the conclusion of the argument.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
General Discussion
05 Apr 2024, 12:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
Paleontologist: Scientists have used evidence about bone structure to infer that carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex had genomes - sets of genetic information in their DNA - much smaller than those of most modern mammals. - background info.
Modern birds have genomes about the same size as those of human dinosaurs, from which they evolved. - Fact.
Therefore, the hypothesis that small genomes in birds were an evolutionary adaptation functioning to conserve energy for flight is probably false. - Conclusion.
As the size of the genome of birds and carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex (could not fly) is the same, we can't say that birds have smaller genomes as an evolutionary adaptation to conserve energy for flight.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
Option Elimination -
A. Species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species. - strengthens the conclusion that small bird genomes were not an evolutionary adaptation to conserve energy for flight.
B. Flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes. - out of scope.
C. Species with small genomes typically use energy much more efficienly than do closely related species with larger genomes. - but in birds, there is no change in genomes with respect to carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex. Out of scope.
D. Many animal species that lived in the period as Tyrannosaurus rex but were not ancestors of modern birds also had relatively small genomes. - out of scope.
E. At least some flightless species that evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs and were ancestors to modern bird species had much larger genomes than modern birds have. - out of scope.
Paleontologist: Scientists have used evidence about bone structure to infer that carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex had genomes - sets of genetic information in their DNA - much smaller than those of most modern mammals. - background info.
Modern birds have genomes about the same size as those of human dinosaurs, from which they evolved. - Fact.
Therefore, the hypothesis that small genomes in birds were an evolutionary adaptation functioning to conserve energy for flight is probably false. - Conclusion.
As the size of the genome of birds and carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex (could not fly) is the same, we can't say that birds have smaller genomes as an evolutionary adaptation to conserve energy for flight.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?
Option Elimination -
A. Species of flying animals other than birds typically have genomes no smaller than those of their most recent flightless ancestor species. - strengthens the conclusion that small bird genomes were not an evolutionary adaptation to conserve energy for flight.
B. Flying mammals such as bats have genomes about the same size as modern bird genomes. - out of scope.
C. Species with small genomes typically use energy much more efficienly than do closely related species with larger genomes. - but in birds, there is no change in genomes with respect to carnivorous dinosaurs like Trynnasauraus rex. Out of scope.
D. Many animal species that lived in the period as Tyrannosaurus rex but were not ancestors of modern birds also had relatively small genomes. - out of scope.
E. At least some flightless species that evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs and were ancestors to modern bird species had much larger genomes than modern birds have. - out of scope.
