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.
May 0608:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory....- May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
20 Sep 2021, 02:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
David: Humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, share over 98 percent of our DNA, and they don’t swim or spend time in the water unless they have to. They even use leaves to soak up water to drink, rather than cup their hands.
Lynn: True, but we also have a layer of fat under our skin, which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat, not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water, helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water.
Lynn responds to David’s argument by
A. agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view.
B. conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument.
C. initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons.
D. ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument.
E. acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion.
Lynn: True, but we also have a layer of fat under our skin, which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat, not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water, helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water.
Lynn responds to David’s argument by
A. agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view.
B. conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument.
C. initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons.
D. ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument.
E. acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion.
20 Sep 2021, 02:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
David: Humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, share over 98 percent of our DNA, and they don’t swim or spend time in the water unless they have to. They even use leaves to soak up water to drink, rather than cup their hands.
Lynn: True, but we also have a layer of fat under our skin, which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat, not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water, helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water.
Lynn responds to David’s argument by
A. agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view.
B. conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument.
C. initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons.
D. ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument.
E. acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion.
David states his position (a.k.a. argument, claim, or conclusion) right upfront in the first line and then goes on to support this claim with a few premises, but they all boil down to a comparison between chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, and, well, ourselves, human beings. Namely, chimpanzees show a dislike for touching water, so humans must not have evolved from an aquatic ancestor.
Who are these opponents? Lynn neither mentions others by name nor suggests their presence through a word such as hypothesis or theory. It does seem clear that these new facts run counter to the ones David used to establish his claim, but evidence on its own does not form a counterargument. Now, if you are conservative like me, you might hang on to this option while you searched for one that was less objectionable, but this is a middle-of-the-road answer, probably not what we want in the end.
Unless we know for sure that humans did, in fact, evolve from an aquatic ancestor, we cannot say that the information Lynn brings up refutes his argument. Again, there are more facts to consider, but the jury is still out on the verdict. Watch out for overreaching language.
If you are reading too close to the text, you might misinterpret the opening two words that Lynn utters: true, but... The overall context of her lines provides no indication that she agreed with the original claim but then pulled an about-face. You can almost envision the word although or while ahead of her portion of dialogue, and that frame sounds more like a concession, perhaps something to say to cushion the information that is about to follow.
Not only does Lynn not ignore the original argument—she clearly addresses human evolution, relative to an aquatic ancestor—but she does not launch into an attack against that argument either. We would expect to see more judgmental language, such as poorly [reasoned] or ill [founded], to qualify labeling her lines an attack. I will discuss this notion of her counterargument below. In all, this should be an easy elimination, given what we have seen up to this point.
All of this is difficult to argue against. Lynn does acknowledge what David said. We are not entirely sure what true may apply to, as I wrote above, but it seems reasonable to infer that it covers the information David used to support his argument, since Lynn then provides information on the same general topic. Does Lynn make a conclusion? No. I cannot point to any part of her speech and say, There is your conclusion. If we go from comma to comma, all one extended line, we get the following:
true—an acknowledgement of some sort;
but we also have a layer of fat under our skin—factual information about the bodily composition of human beings;
which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat—a concession that if David is correct, it would defy expectation, based on our aforementioned bodily composition;
not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water—another fact, this one about fat;
helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water—a modifier, commenting on the previous fact.
In short, no argument or conclusion is ever on display. Lynn brings up points, nothing more.
Between (A) and (E), there is no contest. The beginning of (A) looks worse than its counterpart: agreeing with him. To what extent does Lynn agree with David? It is much safer to say that she acknowledges something in his argument. And whereas we had to come to terms with opponents of that view before, now we have a clearcut lack of a counterargument in (E), as detailed above. (E) is the better option, so that is why we should choose it.
Note that these "Method of Reasoning" questions share certain labeling characteristics with boldface questions. If you are interested in learning how to spot arguments and premises, these types of questions can help.
Answer: E
David: Humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, share over 98 percent of our DNA, and they don’t swim or spend time in the water unless they have to. They even use leaves to soak up water to drink, rather than cup their hands.
Lynn: True, but we also have a layer of fat under our skin, which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat, not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water, helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water.
Lynn responds to David’s argument by
A. agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view.
B. conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument.
C. initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons.
D. ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument.
E. acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion.
Quote:
David states his position (a.k.a. argument, claim, or conclusion) right upfront in the first line and then goes on to support this claim with a few premises, but they all boil down to a comparison between chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, and, well, ourselves, human beings. Namely, chimpanzees show a dislike for touching water, so humans must not have evolved from an aquatic ancestor.
Quote:
Who are these opponents? Lynn neither mentions others by name nor suggests their presence through a word such as hypothesis or theory. It does seem clear that these new facts run counter to the ones David used to establish his claim, but evidence on its own does not form a counterargument. Now, if you are conservative like me, you might hang on to this option while you searched for one that was less objectionable, but this is a middle-of-the-road answer, probably not what we want in the end.
Quote:
Unless we know for sure that humans did, in fact, evolve from an aquatic ancestor, we cannot say that the information Lynn brings up refutes his argument. Again, there are more facts to consider, but the jury is still out on the verdict. Watch out for overreaching language.
Quote:
If you are reading too close to the text, you might misinterpret the opening two words that Lynn utters: true, but... The overall context of her lines provides no indication that she agreed with the original claim but then pulled an about-face. You can almost envision the word although or while ahead of her portion of dialogue, and that frame sounds more like a concession, perhaps something to say to cushion the information that is about to follow.
Quote:
Not only does Lynn not ignore the original argument—she clearly addresses human evolution, relative to an aquatic ancestor—but she does not launch into an attack against that argument either. We would expect to see more judgmental language, such as poorly [reasoned] or ill [founded], to qualify labeling her lines an attack. I will discuss this notion of her counterargument below. In all, this should be an easy elimination, given what we have seen up to this point.
Quote:
All of this is difficult to argue against. Lynn does acknowledge what David said. We are not entirely sure what true may apply to, as I wrote above, but it seems reasonable to infer that it covers the information David used to support his argument, since Lynn then provides information on the same general topic. Does Lynn make a conclusion? No. I cannot point to any part of her speech and say, There is your conclusion. If we go from comma to comma, all one extended line, we get the following:
true—an acknowledgement of some sort;
but we also have a layer of fat under our skin—factual information about the bodily composition of human beings;
which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat—a concession that if David is correct, it would defy expectation, based on our aforementioned bodily composition;
not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water—another fact, this one about fat;
helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water—a modifier, commenting on the previous fact.
In short, no argument or conclusion is ever on display. Lynn brings up points, nothing more.
Between (A) and (E), there is no contest. The beginning of (A) looks worse than its counterpart: agreeing with him. To what extent does Lynn agree with David? It is much safer to say that she acknowledges something in his argument. And whereas we had to come to terms with opponents of that view before, now we have a clearcut lack of a counterargument in (E), as detailed above. (E) is the better option, so that is why we should choose it.
Note that these "Method of Reasoning" questions share certain labeling characteristics with boldface questions. If you are interested in learning how to spot arguments and premises, these types of questions can help.
Answer: E
29 Sep 2023, 21:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
The answer explanation is so brief and helpful.
