This claim that homo habilis, homo rudolfensis and homo erectus, the

Question

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

This claim that homo habilis, homo rudolfensis and homo erectus, the three species previously identified as existing worldwide in the era of approximately 2 million years ago, might represent a single species, is considered tentative, since it is based on a single analysis in the journal Science of a single fossil specimen known as "skull 5." One evolutionary biologist predicts that a wealth of new articles will support this case in the coming year, but even if that prediction proves correct, the new articles will lend no support to the claim that the three species are in fact one, since _______________.

A. only fossils can lend support to this claim, not articles about fossils

B. subsequent articles will expand upon and improve the argument presented in the original article in Science

C. the new articles will most likely construct new arguments based on fossils previously discovered and attributed to the three species

D. the new articles, like the original article, will most likely draw their conclusion from a single fossil record, "skull 5"

E. no articles prior to the original article in Science give any credibility to the claim that the three species might in fact be a single species

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

VT10 · Answer

Can someone confirm this answer?

catchingup · Answer

A. only fossils can lend support to this claim, not articles about fossils - This means it doesn't matter how many articles are getting published, only important thing is Fossils. This is too extreme. It is disapproving all the articles (Old/New)

B. subsequent articles will expand upon and improve the argument presented in the original article in Science - This is contradicting the Author's claim that this more article won't support. Rather it will strengthen the previous research. This is not the point which we are arguing here.

C. the new articles will most likely construct new arguments based on fossils previously discovered and attributed to the three species - As per the Author, we only have one discovery, that is 'Skull 5'. As no other fossils have been discovered so this option is incorrect

D. the new articles, like the original article, will most likely draw their conclusion from a single fossil record, "skull 5" - As the source of the new article is same as the previous article, so no new evidence can be brought. So the conclusion will be same as earlier.  This is Correct

E. no articles prior to the original article in Science give any credibility to the claim that the three species might in fact be a single species - This is talking about earlier article prior to the original article. But we are arguing on future article. So this option is not relevant.

Correct answer is D  as this perfectly fitting the author's claim

Axwe7 · Answer

I still don't understand how A is wrong. Negating it is what could add to the case of the author. Taken at face value, option A) destroys any potential value add of these 'upcoming articles'.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Reading the question: we have a logical argument to complete. Although we intend to digest the argument, we will gloss over the technical terms at first. We have three species and then some opinion language at the phrases "might represent a single species" and "is considered tentative." First opinion: what we'll call the single-species theory. Second opinion: that of the biologist, the opinion that a wealth of articles is on the way in support of the single-species theory. Third opinion: that of the author of this paragraph, namely, that the wealth of articles will "lend no support" to the single-species theory. He's not exactly saying the theory is wrong; he's saying something closer to the fact that the wealth of articles will not be so valuable.

Creating a filter: given the third opinion, our crude prediction for the blank is something like, "the articles will be worthless." Maybe the single species theory is in vogue and insubstantial articles will be written about it.

Applying the filter: Choice (A) contradicts the prompt, since, if the claim about Skull 5 couldn't be supported by articles at all, then the status of the claim in question would be worse than "tentative." Choice (B) says the articles will improve the theory, so it's out. Choice (C), similarly, implies that the articles might be useful, so (C) is out. Choice (D) might match our prediction; these articles doesn't sound so useful. Choice (E) discusses earlier articles and is irrelevant. Everything is out except for (D). Choice (D) is not the most powerful argument imaginable, but it's logical: the new articles will not add credibility because they will be based on the same critical piece of evidence, Skull 5. Choice (D) would be better yet if it specified that the new articles would not analyze the skull in a substantially new way or otherwise advance the analysis of the skull, but that detail is not required.

The correct answer is (D).

This claim that homo habilis, homo rudolfensis and homo erectus, the

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

This claim that homo habilis, homo rudolfensis and homo erectus, the

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