Last visit was: 26 Apr 2026, 15:45 It is currently 26 Apr 2026, 15:45
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Gmatsaiyan
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Last visit: 08 Aug 2022
Posts: 749
Own Kudos:
2,802
 [5]
Given Kudos: 139
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE:General Management (Other)
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Soumya200011
Joined: 15 Apr 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 57
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 365
Location: India
Posts: 57
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
raunakd11
Joined: 30 Jan 2020
Last visit: 25 Nov 2020
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 143
Location: India
GPA: 4
Posts: 139
Kudos: 157
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
GEEMAN1
Joined: 05 Jun 2019
Last visit: 23 Feb 2024
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 319
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Does the phrase "casually related" changes the meaning of the question?
I thought the question meant to ask for the evidence which supports that the two events are not strongly related to each other.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,441
Own Kudos:
79,419
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,441
Kudos: 79,419
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gmatsaiyan
Even though Homo Sapiens have been making tools such as swords, bows, and arrows for over 50,000 years, they did not hunt large animals, i.e. animals heavier than 100 lbs, on a widespread scale prior to the discovery of iron. With the advent of iron age came the transition to metal tools, which were sturdier and lasted longer.

Which of the following if true provides the strongest evidence that the two events, advent of iron age and hunting of larger animals were causally related?

A) While smaller animals such as rabbits could be killed using wooden tools, killing large animals required exerting a force that only tools made with metal can provide.
B) The discovery of fire which was essential to cook animals was made 10,000 years before the advent of iron age.
C) The discovery of large metal reserves coincided with big reduction in population of large animals.
D) Because iron was easier to mold than wood, it quickly became the preferred material for making swords and bows.
E) Because iron could be used to make tools that were more refined, Homo Sapiens ability to precisely target an animal increased significantly in the iron age.

Homo Sapiens have been making tools for long but they did not hunt large animals till iron came into the picture. Presumably, they had been hunting small animals with wooden tools but started hunting large animals only after iron came. So there must be some quality of iron tools that is needed for hunting large animals specifically.

How do we strengthen that iron was the cause of large animal hunting?

A) While smaller animals such as rabbits could be killed using wooden tools, killing large animals required exerting a force that only tools made with metal can provide.

Correct. Tells us why large animals needed metal tools.

B) The discovery of fire which was essential to cook animals was made 10,000 years before the advent of iron age.

Irrelevant. No distinction between small and large animal hunting.

C) The discovery of large metal reserves coincided with big reduction in population of large animals.

This is the effect of hunting large animals.

D) Because iron was easier to mold than wood, it quickly became the preferred material for making swords and bows.

This tells us why iron is easier to use for making tools.

E) Because iron could be used to make tools that were more refined, Homo Sapiens ability to precisely target an animal increased significantly in the iron age.

This tells us that hunting animals was made easier by iron. It doesn't give us the link between large animals and iron.

Answer (A)
User avatar
agrasan
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 677
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6,488
Location: India
Posts: 677
Kudos: 175
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

Gmatsaiyan
Even though Homo Sapiens have been making tools such as swords, bows, and arrows for over 50,000 years, they did not hunt large animals, i.e. animals heavier than 100 lbs, on a widespread scale prior to the discovery of iron. With the advent of iron age came the transition to metal tools, which were sturdier and lasted longer.

Which of the following if true provides the strongest evidence that the two events, advent of iron age and hunting of larger animals were causally related?

A) While smaller animals such as rabbits could be killed using wooden tools, killing large animals required exerting a force that only tools made with metal can provide.
B) The discovery of fire which was essential to cook animals was made 10,000 years before the advent of iron age.
C) The discovery of large metal reserves coincided with big reduction in population of large animals.
D) Because iron was easier to mold than wood, it quickly became the preferred material for making swords and bows.
E) Because iron could be used to make tools that were more refined, Homo Sapiens ability to precisely target an animal increased significantly in the iron age.
Homo Sapiens have been making tools for long but they did not hunt large animals till iron came into the picture. Presumably, they had been hunting small animals with wooden tools but started hunting large animals only after iron came. So there must be some quality of iron tools that is needed for hunting large animals specifically.

How do we strengthen that iron was the cause of large animal hunting?

A) While smaller animals such as rabbits could be killed using wooden tools, killing large animals required exerting a force that only tools made with metal can provide.

Correct. Tells us why large animals needed metal tools.

B) The discovery of fire which was essential to cook animals was made 10,000 years before the advent of iron age.

Irrelevant. No distinction between small and large animal hunting.

C) The discovery of large metal reserves coincided with big reduction in population of large animals.

This is the effect of hunting large animals.

D) Because iron was easier to mold than wood, it quickly became the preferred material for making swords and bows.

This tells us why iron is easier to use for making tools.

E) Because iron could be used to make tools that were more refined, Homo Sapiens ability to precisely target an animal increased significantly in the iron age.

This tells us that hunting animals was made easier by iron. It doesn't give us the link between large animals and iron.

Answer (A)
­
Hi KarishmaB GMATNinja

I have two queries on this question to ensure my reasoning was correct to eliminate options C and E.

1. Is one of the reasons to reject Option E also that we are not sure if "precisely targeting" means "killing"?
2. Did we reject Option C due to the following reasoning? We can’t say it provides evidence that those two events are causally related because the big reduction of animals and the discovery of reserves could happen together due to a natural disaster like an earthquake, asteroid collision, etc.
 
Please let me know if anything is wrong with my thinking here.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,441
Own Kudos:
79,419
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,441
Kudos: 79,419
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan

KarishmaB

Gmatsaiyan
Even though Homo Sapiens have been making tools such as swords, bows, and arrows for over 50,000 years, they did not hunt large animals, i.e. animals heavier than 100 lbs, on a widespread scale prior to the discovery of iron. With the advent of iron age came the transition to metal tools, which were sturdier and lasted longer.

Which of the following if true provides the strongest evidence that the two events, advent of iron age and hunting of larger animals were causally related?

A) While smaller animals such as rabbits could be killed using wooden tools, killing large animals required exerting a force that only tools made with metal can provide.
B) The discovery of fire which was essential to cook animals was made 10,000 years before the advent of iron age.
C) The discovery of large metal reserves coincided with big reduction in population of large animals.
D) Because iron was easier to mold than wood, it quickly became the preferred material for making swords and bows.
E) Because iron could be used to make tools that were more refined, Homo Sapiens ability to precisely target an animal increased significantly in the iron age.
Homo Sapiens have been making tools for long but they did not hunt large animals till iron came into the picture. Presumably, they had been hunting small animals with wooden tools but started hunting large animals only after iron came. So there must be some quality of iron tools that is needed for hunting large animals specifically.

How do we strengthen that iron was the cause of large animal hunting?

A) While smaller animals such as rabbits could be killed using wooden tools, killing large animals required exerting a force that only tools made with metal can provide.

Correct. Tells us why large animals needed metal tools.

B) The discovery of fire which was essential to cook animals was made 10,000 years before the advent of iron age.

Irrelevant. No distinction between small and large animal hunting.

C) The discovery of large metal reserves coincided with big reduction in population of large animals.

This is the effect of hunting large animals.

D) Because iron was easier to mold than wood, it quickly became the preferred material for making swords and bows.

This tells us why iron is easier to use for making tools.

E) Because iron could be used to make tools that were more refined, Homo Sapiens ability to precisely target an animal increased significantly in the iron age.

This tells us that hunting animals was made easier by iron. It doesn't give us the link between large animals and iron.

Answer (A)
­
Hi KarishmaB GMATNinja

I have two queries on this question to ensure my reasoning was correct to eliminate options C and E.

1. Is one of the reasons to reject Option E also that we are not sure if "precisely targeting" means "killing"?
2. Did we reject Option C due to the following reasoning? We can’t say it provides evidence that those two events are causally related because the big reduction of animals and the discovery of reserves could happen together due to a natural disaster like an earthquake, asteroid collision, etc.
 
Please let me know if anything is wrong with my thinking here.
­
"targeting" does imply killing. We reject (E) because it talks about all animals, not about why large animals were more easily targeted by iron tools. Option (A) tells us why it became easier to kill large animals with iron tools. 
If anything, option (E) could actually be a reason for killing smaller animals more easily. You need to "precisely target" a smaller target, not a large one.

Option (C) just says that the two are correlated. It provides no data on causation which is actually the question.  
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
506 posts
361 posts