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.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
10 Feb 2024, 08:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
54% (02:02) correct
46%
(02:11)
wrong
based on 1129
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Scientists studying fossils of a species of dinosaur found stones in the dinosaurs' stomach area. These dinosaurs were vegetarians, but their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size. Thus, the stones may have served to help grind up the dinosaurs' food, just as happens with ostriches and some other modern birds. Alternatively the stones may have served as nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities.
In order to help decide between the two hypotheses for the stones' function, which of the following would it be most useful to know?
(A) Whether the stones had sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation that served as the dinosaurs food
(B) Whether the stones swallowed by ostriches or other modern birds serve to provide any nutritional minerals
(C) Whether stones were found in the stomachs of related species of dinosaurs
(D) Whether any large modern animals typically eat the same sort of vegetation as did these dinosaurs
(E) Whether there is any evidence of the presence of the relevant nutritional minerals in the fossilized bones of these dinosaurs
In order to help decide between the two hypotheses for the stones' function, which of the following would it be most useful to know?
(A) Whether the stones had sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation that served as the dinosaurs food
(B) Whether the stones swallowed by ostriches or other modern birds serve to provide any nutritional minerals
(C) Whether stones were found in the stomachs of related species of dinosaurs
(D) Whether any large modern animals typically eat the same sort of vegetation as did these dinosaurs
(E) Whether there is any evidence of the presence of the relevant nutritional minerals in the fossilized bones of these dinosaurs
Trying to understand why the right answer is right?
GMAT Club Tests explanations walk through concepts, shortcuts, and common traps on many questions.
See how →
10 Feb 2024, 22:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Explanation
Scientists studying fossils of a species of dinosaur found stones in the dinosaurs' stomach area. These dinosaurs were vegetarians, but their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size. Thus, the stones may have served to help grind up the dinosaurs' food, just as happens with ostriches and some other modern birds. Alternatively the stones may have served as nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities.
We see that the passage presents two possible purposes of the stones:
the stones may have served to help grind up the dinosaurs' food
the stones may have served as nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities
The support for both hypotheses is the following:
These dinosaurs were vegetarians, but their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size.
We see that the reasoning supporting the hypotheses is that, since the dinosaurs' teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size, the stones must have either helped them grind the vegetation or provided additional nutrition.
In order to help decide between the two hypotheses for the stones' function, which of the following would it be most useful to know?
The answers to the question presented by the correct answer will either weaken the case for one of the hypotheses, strengthen the case for the other, or weaken the case for one while also strengthening the case for the other.
(A) Whether the stones had sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation that served as the dinosaurs food
The answers to the question presened by this choice would help with determining whether the hypothesis that the dinosaurs swallowed the stones for the purpose of grinding their food is correct. After all, if the answer to the question presented by this choice is "Yes," then it is reason to believe that the dinosaurs swallowed the stones for food grinding purposes, and if the answer to this question is "No," then it is reason to believe that the dinosaurs did not swallow the stones for food grinding purposes.
Now, the answers to the question presented by this choice have no direct effect on the case for the hypothesis that the stones may have served as nutritional supplements because, regardless of whether the stones had sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation that served as the dinosaurs food, they could have served as nutritional supplements.
At the same time, if we have the answer to the question presented by this choice, then we do have at least some indication regarding whether the stones served as nutritional supplements. After all, if the stones did not have sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation, then they likely served some other purpose, information making it more likely that the stones served as nutritional supplements.
So, we can see that the answers to the question presented by this choice indicate both whether the stones served to grind the vegatation and whether they served as nutritional supplements, with a Yes answer to the question supporting the vegetation grinding hypothesis over the supplements hypothesis and a No answer supporting the supplements hypothesis over the vegetation grinding hypothesis.
Keep.
(B) Whether the stones swallowed by ostriches or other modern birds serve to provide any nutritional minerals
The correct answer must present a question such that the answers indicate that the stones served ONE OR THE OTHER of the two possible purposes mentioned by the passage.
On the other hand, since we already know that stones swallowed by ostriches help to grind their food, the answer to this question would indicate whether the stones serve BOTH of the two possible purposes mentioned the passage. So, the answers would not indicate what we need them to indicate.
Eliminate.
(C) Whether stones were found in the stomachs of related species of dinosaurs
Notice that, regardless of whether stones were found in the stomachs of other species of dinosaurs, we still would not have information on WHY the stones were there, and the correct answer to this question must be one such that the answers to the question it presents indicate what the purpose of the stones was.
Eliminate.
(D) Whether any large modern animals typically eat the same sort of vegetation as did these dinosaurs
Whether any large modern animals eat the same sort of vegetation as these dinosaurs ate has no bearing on the argument. After all, the point of the argument is not whether they ate the vegetation or whether the vegatation could have provided sufficient nutrition.
The point is that the dinosaurs' teeth were such that they could not have gotten the nutrition they needed by chewing vegetation, so tbey needed to get it in some other way, and we are seeking to determine which way that was.
Now, if this choice were about modern animals using stones to grind food or getting nutrition from stones, the answers to the question it presents might indicate something about why the dinosaurs ate the stones.
As this choice is, though, the answers to the questions it presents have no effect on case for either hypothesis.
Eliminate.
(E) Whether there is any evidence of the presence of the relevant nutritional minerals in the fossilized bones of these dinosaurs
Notice that this choice is about "the fossilized bones" of the dinosaurs. When bones fossilize, their composition changes from what it orignaly was when the animal that had the bones was living.
So, this choice is not about whether the bones of the dinosaurs contained any minerals. It's about whether the bones still have minerals they would have contained while the dinosaurs were living.
After all, the passage says the following:
their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size
We see that the passage indicates that the dinosaurs definitely needed nutrition they could not get by chewing vegatation. So, there is no question that, when they were alive, their bodies were using nutrition, such as minerals, that they would have taken in in some way other than chewing vegatation.
Thus, regardless of what the answer to the question presented by this choice is, the dinosaurs could have gotten necessary nutrition from the stones.
So, the answers to the question presented by this choice have no effect on the case for either hypothesis.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
Scientists studying fossils of a species of dinosaur found stones in the dinosaurs' stomach area. These dinosaurs were vegetarians, but their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size. Thus, the stones may have served to help grind up the dinosaurs' food, just as happens with ostriches and some other modern birds. Alternatively the stones may have served as nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities.
We see that the passage presents two possible purposes of the stones:
the stones may have served to help grind up the dinosaurs' food
the stones may have served as nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities
The support for both hypotheses is the following:
These dinosaurs were vegetarians, but their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size.
We see that the reasoning supporting the hypotheses is that, since the dinosaurs' teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size, the stones must have either helped them grind the vegetation or provided additional nutrition.
In order to help decide between the two hypotheses for the stones' function, which of the following would it be most useful to know?
The answers to the question presented by the correct answer will either weaken the case for one of the hypotheses, strengthen the case for the other, or weaken the case for one while also strengthening the case for the other.
(A) Whether the stones had sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation that served as the dinosaurs food
The answers to the question presened by this choice would help with determining whether the hypothesis that the dinosaurs swallowed the stones for the purpose of grinding their food is correct. After all, if the answer to the question presented by this choice is "Yes," then it is reason to believe that the dinosaurs swallowed the stones for food grinding purposes, and if the answer to this question is "No," then it is reason to believe that the dinosaurs did not swallow the stones for food grinding purposes.
Now, the answers to the question presented by this choice have no direct effect on the case for the hypothesis that the stones may have served as nutritional supplements because, regardless of whether the stones had sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation that served as the dinosaurs food, they could have served as nutritional supplements.
At the same time, if we have the answer to the question presented by this choice, then we do have at least some indication regarding whether the stones served as nutritional supplements. After all, if the stones did not have sufficient volume to efficiently grind the vegetation, then they likely served some other purpose, information making it more likely that the stones served as nutritional supplements.
So, we can see that the answers to the question presented by this choice indicate both whether the stones served to grind the vegatation and whether they served as nutritional supplements, with a Yes answer to the question supporting the vegetation grinding hypothesis over the supplements hypothesis and a No answer supporting the supplements hypothesis over the vegetation grinding hypothesis.
Keep.
(B) Whether the stones swallowed by ostriches or other modern birds serve to provide any nutritional minerals
The correct answer must present a question such that the answers indicate that the stones served ONE OR THE OTHER of the two possible purposes mentioned by the passage.
On the other hand, since we already know that stones swallowed by ostriches help to grind their food, the answer to this question would indicate whether the stones serve BOTH of the two possible purposes mentioned the passage. So, the answers would not indicate what we need them to indicate.
Eliminate.
(C) Whether stones were found in the stomachs of related species of dinosaurs
Notice that, regardless of whether stones were found in the stomachs of other species of dinosaurs, we still would not have information on WHY the stones were there, and the correct answer to this question must be one such that the answers to the question it presents indicate what the purpose of the stones was.
Eliminate.
(D) Whether any large modern animals typically eat the same sort of vegetation as did these dinosaurs
Whether any large modern animals eat the same sort of vegetation as these dinosaurs ate has no bearing on the argument. After all, the point of the argument is not whether they ate the vegetation or whether the vegatation could have provided sufficient nutrition.
The point is that the dinosaurs' teeth were such that they could not have gotten the nutrition they needed by chewing vegetation, so tbey needed to get it in some other way, and we are seeking to determine which way that was.
Now, if this choice were about modern animals using stones to grind food or getting nutrition from stones, the answers to the question it presents might indicate something about why the dinosaurs ate the stones.
As this choice is, though, the answers to the questions it presents have no effect on case for either hypothesis.
Eliminate.
(E) Whether there is any evidence of the presence of the relevant nutritional minerals in the fossilized bones of these dinosaurs
Notice that this choice is about "the fossilized bones" of the dinosaurs. When bones fossilize, their composition changes from what it orignaly was when the animal that had the bones was living.
So, this choice is not about whether the bones of the dinosaurs contained any minerals. It's about whether the bones still have minerals they would have contained while the dinosaurs were living.
After all, the passage says the following:
their teeth could not have chewed a sufficient quantity of vegetation well enough to provide nutrition to support their large size
We see that the passage indicates that the dinosaurs definitely needed nutrition they could not get by chewing vegatation. So, there is no question that, when they were alive, their bodies were using nutrition, such as minerals, that they would have taken in in some way other than chewing vegatation.
Thus, regardless of what the answer to the question presented by this choice is, the dinosaurs could have gotten necessary nutrition from the stones.
So, the answers to the question presented by this choice have no effect on the case for either hypothesis.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
10 Feb 2024, 22:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
katkot
Okay, so it's GMAT instructors and test takers vs. our eventual AI overlords. Let's start. No pressure!
We know that:
1. These dinosaurs were vegetarians
2. Their teeth could not have chewed enough vegetation (a) well enough (b) to provide nutrition to support their large size
3. There were stones in their stomachs
The argument says that there are two possible reasons for (3): "help grind up the dinosaurs' food" or "nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities".
The task is to figure out which option would help us choose between the {grind food} and {nutritional supplements} hypotheses.
katkot
A. We know that the dinosaurs were vegetarians, so their nutrition doesn't come from other animals. We also know that they were so large that their teeth could not have chewed enough vegetation well enough.
If the stones were large enough to efficiently ("well enough") grind vegetation, that would support the {grind food} hypothesis. Alternatively, if the stones weren't large enough to efficiently grind vegetation, that would weaken the {grind food} hypothesis.
katkot
B. The question tells us that as far as modern birds are concerned, the stones do {grind food}, not {nutritional supplements}. Therefore, by focusing on nutritional minerals, option B tries to link the first hypothesis to the second. Getting an answer to B would tell us whether it's possible for stones to do both {grind food} and {nutritional supplements}. It won't, however, help us choose between the two hypotheses.
Moreover, we don't know how large these modern birds are, so it's hard to say whether what applies to modern birds also applies to the large vegetarian dinosaurs the question refers to.
katkot
C. In the absence of any further information, knowing only whether stones were found in the stomachs of other dinosaurs won't help us understand what the function of these stones was.
katkot
D. We don't know (a) whether these large modern animals are similarly large, (b) whether they eat only vegetation, (c) whether their teeth can grind food well enough, and (d) whether these modern animals have stones in their stomachs. Therefore, information about whether they eat the same kind of vegetation isn't very useful in helping us choose between the {grind food} and {nutritional supplements} hypotheses.
katkot
E. The question tells us that "the stones may have served as nutritional supplements, supplying minerals not found in vegetation in large enough quantities". Effectively, we know that vegetation can supply those minerals, just not in large enough quantities. So the presence of "any evidence" of such minerals isn't as useful as option A in helping us choose between the {grind food} and {nutritional supplements} hypotheses.
If option E had given us information about minerals not found (at all) in vegetation, that would have been far more helpful.
