Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 18:20 It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 18:20
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
805+ (Hard)|   Weaken|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,785
Own Kudos:
810,873
 [13]
Given Kudos: 105,853
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,785
Kudos: 810,873
 [13]
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been 01 May 2020, 02:13
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
12
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:30) correct 53% (02:32) wrong based on 429 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet

Competition Mode Question



On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been thought to have been covered by ice for at least the past 14 million years. Recently, however, three-million-year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under the ice sheet covering central Antarctica. About three million years ago, therefore, the Antarctic ice sheet must temporarily have melted. After all, either severe climatic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica’s mountains could have melted the ice sheet, thus raising sea levels and submerging the continent.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?


(A) That a given position is widely believed to be true is taken to show that the position in question must, in fact, be true.

(B) That either of two things could independently have produced a given effect is taken to show that those two things could not have operated in conjunction to produce that effect.

(C) Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause of that event.

(D) A claim that has a very general application is based entirely on evidence from a narrowly restricted range of cases.

(E) An inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution is treated as though only one resolution is possible.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E
User avatar
exc4libur
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Last visit: 22 Mar 2022
Posts: 1,680
Own Kudos:
1,469
 [1]
Given Kudos: 607
Location: United States
Posts: 1,680
Kudos: 1,469
 [1]
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been 01 May 2020, 17:31
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been thought to have been covered by ice for at least the past 14 million years. Recently, however, three-million-year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under the ice sheet covering central Antarctica. About three million years ago, therefore, the Antarctic ice sheet must temporarily have melted. After all, either severe climatic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica’s mountains could have melted the ice sheet, thus raising sea levels and submerging the continent.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
(A) That a given position is widely believed to be true is taken to show that the position in question must, in fact, be true.
(B) That either of two things could independently have produced a given effect is taken to show that those two things could not have operated in conjunction to produce that effect.
(C) Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause of that event.
(D) A claim that has a very general application is based entirely on evidence from a narrowly restricted range of cases.
(E) An inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution is treated as though only one resolution is possible.
Show more

argument
=ant covered in ice for ≥14mln yrs
=fossils found under ice 3mln yrs ago
=thus, ice sheet must have melted temporarily
=since, either climate warm or volcanoes could've caused this

wkn
ans (E) the inconsistency found (fossils etc) is presented as caused by only one or another possibility, what if something else happened, ie. meteor shower.
User avatar
Bambi2021
User avatar
Joined: 13 Mar 2021
Last visit: 23 Dec 2021
Posts: 306
Own Kudos:
142
 [2]
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 306
Kudos: 142
 [2]
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been 15 Jul 2021, 12:13
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have a hard time ruling out D here.

A general claim (= global warming -> melting of ice) is based on a narrowly restricted range of cases (one or a few fossils).

D seems exceptionally close to what we are looking for?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 943
Own Kudos:
214
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 943
Kudos: 214
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been 16 Jul 2021, 21:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) That a given position is widely believed to be true is taken to show that the position in question must, in fact, be true.

(B) That either of two things could independently have produced a given effect is taken to show that those two things could not have operated in conjunction to produce that effect.
There is a possiblity both could have simultaneously produced the effect or individually but it cannot be ruled none of them led to the event

(C) Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause of that event.
There is no confusion whether the event is established or the cause is established

(D) A claim that has a very general application is based entirely on evidence from a narrowly restricted range of cases.
If of only 2 cases presented and these are the only cases then they cannot be narrowed as the only cases

(E) An inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution is treated as though only one resolution is possible.
Yes this is probable there can be n no of possiblities
Hence IMO E
Thanks :)
User avatar
sssanskaar
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 09 Oct 2022
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
132
Given Kudos: 163
Location: India
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Posts: 210
Kudos: 132
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been 17 Jul 2021, 04:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Straight option E - what if the ice never melted? What if that fossil is just one of the fossils found of the species that may have been living in the ocean for millennia? Then the ice never melted!
User avatar
arushi118
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2024
Last visit: 19 Apr 2026
Posts: 267
Own Kudos:
76
Given Kudos: 894
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: INSEAD Aug '26 LBS '26 Kellogg '26
GPA: 8.2/10
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: INSEAD Aug '26 LBS '26 Kellogg '26
Posts: 267
Kudos: 76
On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been 09 Apr 2026, 09:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
why can it not be A?
It is "generally" thought to be covered with ice for the past 14M years. What if this was not true -- that it has been covered by ice only for the past 2 million years?
Then the conclusion that "ice temporarily melted" will not hold true.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
501 posts
bhanu29
358 posts