Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago,

Question

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago, as the climate became warmer. During the same period the large mammals that were once abundant in North America, such as the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct. Thus, contrary to the myth that humans formerly lived in harmony with the rest of nature, it is clear that even 12,000 years ago human activity was causing the extinction of animal species.

The argument is most vulnerable o the criticism that

(A) it adopts without question a view of the world in which humans are seen as not included in nature

(B) in calling the idea that humans once lived in harmony with nature a myth the argument presupposes what it attempts to prove

(C) for early inhabitants of North America the destruction of mastodons, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers might have had very different significance than the extinction of mammal species does for modern humans

(D) there might have been many other species of animals, besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers, that became extinct as the result of the spread of humans across North American

(E) the evidence it cites is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the large mammals’ extinction was a direct result of the same change in climate that allowed humans to spread across North American

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Let's start by breaking down the structure of the argument. The conclusion is that human activity   caused   the extinction of animal species about 12,000 years ago. This is in contrast to the "myth" that humans lived in harmony with these animals.

What else is in the argument that helps the author get to this conclusion?
 
 Humans began spreading across North America about 12,000 years ago. 
 This occurred at the same time that the climate was getting warmer. 
 This also occurred at the same time that certain large mammals became extinct.

So we have three things that are all occurring at the same time: humans spreading out, climate getting warmer, and certain large mammals dying out. The argument uses this to reach the conclusion that the humans  caused  some animal species to go extinct.

The question asks how this argument is susceptible to criticism, so we're looking for a weakness in the argument.

Does the argument take the view that humans are not included in nature? I'm not sure. I guess you could look at the humans as being outside of nature and imposing themselves on nature by causing the extinction of animals. Or maybe the humans are just another species within nature trying to reproduce and expand and find energy and this just happened to crowd out other species.

Either way, the argument doesn't adopt anything without question. It points to some evidence, so it has at least some backing.

Based on this, we can eliminate answer choice (A).

The argument  does  label the view that humans once lived in harmony with nature as a "myth." Does that mean that the argument just assumed its conclusion? No. The argument does provide premises from which it tries to draw its conclusion. So answer choice (B) is wrong.

The  significance  of the destruction or extinction of the mammals is irrelevant. All we care about is whether the humans  caused  the extinction. So we can eliminate answer choice (C).

The argument says that "large mammals . . .  such as  the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct." So this isn't an exhaustive list; it's only a list of examples. This implies that there  are  other species that became extinct during the same time period. So we don't need to get caught up by the fact that there might have been other species that became extinct.

What does the conclusion say? It says that humans "caused the extinction of animal species" during this time period. It isn't specific about which species. So the fact that there might have been other extinctions besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers doesn't really matter. So we can eliminate answer choice (D).

The argument is based on three things that all happened at the same time: humans spread across North America, the climate warmed, and some species went extinct. Just because these things happened at the same time, does that mean that one of them  caused  the others? No, correlation isn't causation. We see things that happen at the same time all the time and that doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other.

This answer choice points out a different theory of causation that would be consistent with the events that all happened at the same time. Perhaps the climate warmed and this caused the extinction of the large mammals in addition to allowing humans to spread out across North America. If that's the case then the humans weren't the ones that caused the extinction! The evidence cited could point to this conclusion just as easily as it could point to the conclusion in the actual argument. That's a serious weakness in the argument, so we can choose answer choice (E) as the best answer.

I hope that helps!

Gknight5603 · Answer

E ..... it may be that increase in temperature was pernicious for the animals...

Posted from my mobile device

auradediligodo · Answer

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago, as the climate became warmer. During the same period the large mammals that were once abundant in North America, such as the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct. Thus, contrary to the myth that humans formerly lived in harmony with the rest of nature, it is clear that even 12,000 years ago human activity was causing the extinction of animal species.

The argument is most vulnerable o the criticism that

Weaken question

Pre-thinking

The author presents 2 facts: 
#1: Humans moving to North America
#2: Extinction during the same period of some animals

And then the author concludes:  Humans caused the extinctions of those animals.

The   Gap in the author's logic   is that there are no evidence to claim that humans were responsible for the change as other factors could have just contributed to the extinctions.

POE:

(A) it adopts without question a view of the world in which humans are seen as not included in nature
 Irrelevant

(B) in calling the idea that humans once lived in harmony with nature a myth the argument presupposes what it attempts to prove
 Irrelevant

(C) for early inhabitants of North America the destruction of mastodons, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers might have had very different significance than the extinction of mammal species does for modern humans
 Irrelevant

(D) there might have been many other species of animals, besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers, that became extinct as the result of the spread of humans across North American
 Irrelevant

(E)   the evidence it cites is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the large mammals’ extinction was a direct result of the same change in climate that allowed humans to spread across North American
 In line with pre-thinking

globaldesi · Answer

E gives you the alternative explanation that what could be the other reason for animal extinction and thus weakens the given conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

Xolmuhammad · Answer

Please, experts, give some explanations for this question

Nhaanh · Answer

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago, as the climate became warmer. During the same period the large mammals that were once abundant in North America, such as the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct. Thus, contrary to the myth that humans formerly lived in harmony with the rest of nature, it is clear that even 12,000 years ago human activity was causing the extinction of animal species.

The argument is most vulnerable o the criticism that

(A) it adopts without question a view of the world in which humans are seen as not included in nature
=> Irrelevant.

(B) in calling the idea that humans once lived in harmony with nature a myth the argument presupposes what it attempts to prove
=> ppl once live harmony with nature but they can kill them later. => Incorrect.

(C) for early inhabitants of North America the destruction of mastodons, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers might have had very different significance than the extinction of mammal species does for modern humans.
=> We dont care anything related to modern => incorrect

(D) there might have been many other species of animals, besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers, that became extinct as the result of the spread of humans across North American
=> We only focus on matodons... not others. => Irrelevant.

(E) the evidence it cites is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the large mammals’ extinction was a direct result of the same change in climate that allowed humans to spread across North American
=> In other words, this says another reason (climate change) that the argument skipped. => weaken

unraveled · Answer

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago, as the climate became warmer . During the same period the large mammals that were once abundant in North America, such as the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct. Thus, contrary to the myth that humans formerly lived in harmony with the rest of nature, it is clear that even 12,000 years ago  human activity was causing the extinction of animal species.

The argument is most vulnerable o the criticism that

(A) it adopts without question a view of the world in which  humans are seen as not included in nature  - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) in calling the idea that humans once lived in harmony with nature a myth the argument  presupposes what it attempts to prove  - WRONG. Though it may look like so in the passage but it is not so the case. Talking 'myth' might be right but presupposing is not.

(C) for early inhabitants of North America the destruction of mastodons, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers might have had very  different significance than  the extinction of mammal species does for  modern humans  - WRONG. No comparison is sighted or suggested.

(D) there might have been many  other species of animals , besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers, that became extinct as the result of the spread of humans across North American - WRONG. At best does not criticise. Not concerned about other species.

(E) the evidence it cites is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the large mammals’ extinction was a direct result of the same change in climate that allowed humans to spread across North American - CORRECT. See the two highlighted text in the passage. One reason two different results but one result is concluded to have resulted another.

Answer E.

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.

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago,

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

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago,

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