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 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.
15 Dec 2025, 05:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:43) correct
30%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 168
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Paleontologists had long supposed that the dinosaur Diplodocus browsed for high-growing vegetation such as treetop leaves by raising its very long neck. But now computer models have shown that the structure of Diplodocus’s neck bones would have prevented such movement. The neck could, however, bend downward and even extend below ground level, allowing Diplodocus to access underwater vegetation from dry land. Thus, Diplodocus must have fed on plants on or near the ground, or underwater.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) The same type of neck structure is found in modern ground-feeding animals.
(B) Diplodocus was not able to see in front of itself unless its head was angled steeply downward.
(C) It would be impossible for a large animal such as Diplodocus to supply blood to an elevated brain.
(D) Diplodocus had no other way of accessing high-growing vegetation, such as by rising up on its hind legs.
(E) Diplodocus was not able to browse for underwater vegetation by kneeling beside bodies of water or by walking into them.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) The same type of neck structure is found in modern ground-feeding animals.
(B) Diplodocus was not able to see in front of itself unless its head was angled steeply downward.
(C) It would be impossible for a large animal such as Diplodocus to supply blood to an elevated brain.
(D) Diplodocus had no other way of accessing high-growing vegetation, such as by rising up on its hind legs.
(E) Diplodocus was not able to browse for underwater vegetation by kneeling beside bodies of water or by walking into them.
16 Dec 2025, 00:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument Structure:
• Evidence: Computer models show neck couldn't move upward (but could bend down to reach underwater vegetation from dry land)
• Conclusion: Therefore, Diplodocus "must have" fed on ground-level or underwater plants
The Gap:
The argument proves the neck couldn't go up. Then concludes the dinosaur couldn't access high vegetation.
Key Insight: What if there's another method to reach high plants—like rearing up on hind legs?
---
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The same type of neck structure is found in modern ground-feeding animals.
This would strengthen via analogy, but is it required? Negation: "Modern ground-feeders have different neck structures" → Doesn't destroy the argument about what Diplodocus did. Not required. Eliminate.
(B) Diplodocus was not able to see in front of itself unless its head was angled steeply downward.
Vision is completely outside the scope. The argument is about physical access to food, not sight. Out of scope. Eliminate.
(C) It would be impossible for a large animal such as Diplodocus to supply blood to an elevated brain.
This gives another reason it couldn't raise its head. But the argument already established the neck couldn't move up—we don't need additional reasons. Not required. Eliminate.
(D) Diplodocus had no other way of accessing high-growing vegetation, such as by rising up on its hind legs.
Negation Test: "Diplodocus COULD rise on its hind legs to reach high vegetation"
→ If true, the neck limitation becomes irrelevant—it could still eat treetop leaves
→ Conclusion destroyed ✓
Hence, the argument requires that no alternative method existed. CORRECT.
(E) Diplodocus was not able to browse for underwater vegetation by kneeling beside bodies of water or by walking into them.
Many pick (E) because they see "access underwater vegetation from dry land" and think this detail needs protection.
Root Cause of Error: They misunderstand what the conclusion is actually claiming.
The conclusion is: Diplodocus fed LOW (ground or underwater) — not HIGH
The conclusion is NOT: Diplodocus fed underwater specifically by using its neck from dry land
So whether it used its neck from shore, knelt, or walked into water — all = underwater feeding = matches the conclusion perfectly.
The argument's logical link is: can't reach HIGH → must feed LOW
(E) attacks the METHOD of low feeding. But the gap is about HIGH vs LOW, not about how it fed low. Eliminate.
---
Takeaway: Before evaluating answer choices, identify the exact logical link being made. Here it's "couldn't access high → fed low." Assumptions must protect that link.
Answer: (D)
• Evidence: Computer models show neck couldn't move upward (but could bend down to reach underwater vegetation from dry land)
• Conclusion: Therefore, Diplodocus "must have" fed on ground-level or underwater plants
The Gap:
The argument proves the neck couldn't go up. Then concludes the dinosaur couldn't access high vegetation.
Key Insight: What if there's another method to reach high plants—like rearing up on hind legs?
---
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The same type of neck structure is found in modern ground-feeding animals.
This would strengthen via analogy, but is it required? Negation: "Modern ground-feeders have different neck structures" → Doesn't destroy the argument about what Diplodocus did. Not required. Eliminate.
(B) Diplodocus was not able to see in front of itself unless its head was angled steeply downward.
Vision is completely outside the scope. The argument is about physical access to food, not sight. Out of scope. Eliminate.
(C) It would be impossible for a large animal such as Diplodocus to supply blood to an elevated brain.
This gives another reason it couldn't raise its head. But the argument already established the neck couldn't move up—we don't need additional reasons. Not required. Eliminate.
(D) Diplodocus had no other way of accessing high-growing vegetation, such as by rising up on its hind legs.
Negation Test: "Diplodocus COULD rise on its hind legs to reach high vegetation"
→ If true, the neck limitation becomes irrelevant—it could still eat treetop leaves
→ Conclusion destroyed ✓
Hence, the argument requires that no alternative method existed. CORRECT.
(E) Diplodocus was not able to browse for underwater vegetation by kneeling beside bodies of water or by walking into them.
Many pick (E) because they see "access underwater vegetation from dry land" and think this detail needs protection.
Root Cause of Error: They misunderstand what the conclusion is actually claiming.
The conclusion is: Diplodocus fed LOW (ground or underwater) — not HIGH
The conclusion is NOT: Diplodocus fed underwater specifically by using its neck from dry land
So whether it used its neck from shore, knelt, or walked into water — all = underwater feeding = matches the conclusion perfectly.
The argument's logical link is: can't reach HIGH → must feed LOW
(E) attacks the METHOD of low feeding. But the gap is about HIGH vs LOW, not about how it fed low. Eliminate.
---
Takeaway: Before evaluating answer choices, identify the exact logical link being made. Here it's "couldn't access high → fed low." Assumptions must protect that link.
Answer: (D)
Moderators:
