It has been argued that the immense size of the Tyrannosaurus rex

Question

It has been argued that the immense size of the Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow that it could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter, since it would not have been able to chase down its prey. This, however, is an overly hasty inference. T. rex's prey, if it was even larger than T. rex, would probably have been slower than T. rex.

The claim that T. rex could have been a scavenger, not a hunter, plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

(A) It is a hypothesis that is claimed in the argument to be logically inconsistent with the conclusion advanced by the argument

(B) It is a hypothesis that the argument contends is probably false

(C) It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence

(D) It is offered as evidence in support of a hypothesis that the argument concludes to be false

(E) It is offered as evidence that is necessary for drawing the conclusion advanced by the argument

arora1 · Answer

This is one of those questions in which as you read the options, the better answer you identify!
A: It is not inconsistent with the conclusion. In fact there is no conclusion which does not include the claim "T. rex could have been a scavenger, not a hunter". So the claim cannot be inconsistent with itself

B: Close option, but false is too strong (in-spite the  probably ) considering the overall argument tone.

C: correct

D: The claim "T. rex could have been a scavenger, not a hunter" is not an evidence

E: The claim "T. rex could have been a scavenger, not a hunter" is not an evidence

kadamhari825 · Answer

Hello expert  nightblade354

I chose option A. i inferred  T. rex could have been a scavenger, not a hunter  as intermediate conclusion because it is supported by premise   since it would not have been able to chase down its prey   and  This, however, is an overly hasty inference  as main conclusion of the argument.

is there any inconsistency in my understanding? please enlighten.

Thanks and regards

Shikhar22 · Answer

Hi Andrew  AndrewN  Need your views on this question. Thank you.

the option c says - It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE - and it's the OA.

But the conclusion is that the previous hypothesis is nothing but a hasty infrence, with nothing about the sufficiency of the evidence. Is calling out a hypothesis as 'a hasty infrence’, presumes 'the lack of evidence' in the hypothesis?

Posted from my mobile device

AndrewN · Answer

Good question,  Shikhar22 , one that I will answer with a firm no. The lack of evidence in answer choice (D) speaks specifically to the premise used to support the original argument. Let me clarify:

Argument:  the immense size of the Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow that it could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter

Support:  it would not have been  able to chase down its prey

Counterargument: Such an inference is  overly hasty

Support:  T. rex's prey, if it was even larger than T. rex, would probably have been  slower than T. rex

The counterargument does not allow the claim about the size of T. rex to stand on its own—perhaps prey dinosaurs were even larger, a previously unacknowledged possibility that, if true, would completely undercut the original argument. Thus, the  sufficiency of the evidence  is, in fact, called into question, and choice (C) is justified.

Answer choice (B) goes too far in labeling the original argument  false , even if the buffer  probably  softens the judgment. Remember, the counterargument attacks the  inference  without putting forth a definitive claim that T. rex was a hunter: a conditional statement— if   was even larger... —should not be taken as proof positive that the author/speaker gets behind the opposite notion of the original argument. We really have no idea how the author/speaker of the passage would classify T. rex, based on its eating habits. Just stick to exactly what the passage states, and you will save yourself a lot of trouble.

I hope that helps clarify the matter. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Namangupta1997 · Answer

Hi  AndrewN

I didn't quite understand the highlighted part. Can you elaborate a little more? Also did you mean  prey of dinosaurs  instead of prey dinosaurs?

Also, why is A wrong? Is it because the exact conclusion of the passage is "such an inference is overly hasty" and, if we go very literal, the excerpt of the passage in question is not being attacked by the "conclusion's" logic ? I am not 100% sure.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Namangupta1997 . I meant exactly what I wrote:  prey dinosaurs  would be those that were eaten by other dinosaurs (as opposed to predatory dinosaurs). The highlighted part above is a recap of the previous lines of the passage that I had broken down into smaller chunks.

If you are preparing for the GMAT™, I would look elsewhere for questions to study. I do not think the above question resembles one I would expect to encounter on the GMAT™. Still, in the interest of helping with your query, feel free to check out  this thread  in the Manhattan Prep LSAT forum or  this one  in the PowerScore LSAT forum.

Happy reading.

- Andrew

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.

It has been argued that the immense size of the Tyrannosaurus rex

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 has been argued that the immense size of the Tyrannosaurus rex

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