by: jeffn
1 min
by: gautamK0206
15 mins
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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
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:
33% (02:02) correct
67%
(02:19)
wrong
based on 344
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In analyzing the fossil record, paleontologists have found that species with broader geographic ranges tend to survive longer than those with more localized habitats. One explanation is that widespread species are more resilient to localized environmental disturbances, such as droughts or disease outbreaks. Consequently, researchers argue that species with larger habitat ranges are more likely to persist over evolutionary timescales than those with limited distribution.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the argument above?
A. Species with broad geographic ranges often experience high levels of genetic divergence across subpopulations, making them more vulnerable to speciation and eventual extinction.
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species.
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes.
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions.
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change.
_________________
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the argument above?
A. Species with broad geographic ranges often experience high levels of genetic divergence across subpopulations, making them more vulnerable to speciation and eventual extinction.
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species.
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes.
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions.
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change.
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
V40-18
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
Bunuel
GMAT Club Official Explanation:
The Core Logic of the Argument: To find the correct weakener, we first need to identify the specific conclusion and the evidence used to support it. The argument concludes that species with larger habitat ranges are more likely to persist over evolutionary time. The evidence for this is the "fossil record," which allegedly shows a correlation between broad ranges and longer survival. The author proposes a causal mechanism: broad ranges help species survive localized problems like drought. To weaken this, we need to show that the correlation in the fossil record might be misleading or that the evidence is flawed.
(A) Incorrect. This option suggests that broad ranges lead to speciation (evolving into new species) and eventual extinction. While this sounds like a scientific objection, it attacks the mechanism rather than the data. Even if speciation occurs, it doesn't necessarily disprove the observation that these species tend to last longer before that happens. Furthermore, in evolutionary terms, "speciation" is often considered a form of survival (the lineage continues), whereas the argument is focused on total extinction. Option D is a more fundamental attack on the evidence itself.
(B) Incorrect. This answer choice falls into the "outliers" trap. The argument claims that species with broad ranges "tend" to survive longer—a general statistical trend. Pointing out "several" specific exceptions where widespread species died out does not disprove the general rule. Additionally, this option mentions "global extinction events." The argument specifically argues that broad ranges protect against localized disturbances. Global catastrophes that wipe out the entire planet would kill everything regardless of range size, so this doesn't actually attack the specific logic regarding local resilience.
(C) Incorrect. This option explains why localized species might survive well in stable environments (because they are specialized). However, being "better adapted" to a specific niche is actually a disadvantage when that niche changes or disappears. The argument is about resilience to change over long periods. Just because localized species have advantages in the short term does not mean they survive longer on evolutionary timescales, so this statement does not effectively undermine the conclusion.
(D) Correct. This is the correct answer because it attacks the validity of the data source (the fossil record). The argument relies entirely on the observation that widespread species appear to survive longer in the fossil record. This option points out a "sampling bias": species that live in many different places are simply more likely to leave fossils behind than species that live in only one place. Therefore, widespread species might not actually live longer; they just look like they do because we find more of them. If the evidence is an illusion caused by preservation bias, the conclusion falls apart.
(E) Incorrect. Like Option B, this falls into the "anecdotal evidence" trap. The argument is about a general tendency across all species. Identifying "some" species with limited ranges that managed to survive a long time is merely finding a few exceptions to the rule. A general trend can still be valid even if there are a few exceptions, so this statement is not strong enough to undermine the overall reasoning.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
General Discussion
Option D, because if the data source on which the conclusion is based itself is not correct than the conclusion will weaken. key assumption is correctness of fossil records.
Here imo, answer would be D, because it challenges the force of evidence by suggesting that since the present observation of reasearchers is based on the fossil record, which is extrapolated or overhighlights one type of species over others. Hence force of evidence weakened.
Posts: 47
In this argument.
conclusion is that: species with broad geographic ranges tend to survive longer than with more localized habitat.
The reasoning is being given in following sentences.
1. widespread species are more resilient towards local disturbances.
We might need evidence to show that broad geographic range doesn't necessarily means more survival chances.
A) It does weaken somewhat but not attacking directly towards the resilient hence eliminate
B) It presents the evidence from past that broad range species are not necessarily able to survive,
Hence keep it
C) It also somewhat weakens but not attacking directly the reasoning hence eliminate
D) It is weaking by attacking the evidence but we need that weakens the reasoning hence eliminate
E) Quite specific towards broad range species we dont know about the localized species hence eliminate
So best answer is (B)
conclusion is that: species with broad geographic ranges tend to survive longer than with more localized habitat.
The reasoning is being given in following sentences.
1. widespread species are more resilient towards local disturbances.
We might need evidence to show that broad geographic range doesn't necessarily means more survival chances.
A) It does weaken somewhat but not attacking directly towards the resilient hence eliminate
B) It presents the evidence from past that broad range species are not necessarily able to survive,
Hence keep it
C) It also somewhat weakens but not attacking directly the reasoning hence eliminate
D) It is weaking by attacking the evidence but we need that weakens the reasoning hence eliminate
E) Quite specific towards broad range species we dont know about the localized species hence eliminate
So best answer is (B)
Posts: 186
Conclusion - Larger habitat ranges are more likely to persist over evolutionary timescales than those with limited distribution
Option A - genetic divergence is okay but this doesn't weaken the conclusion - eliminate
Option B - global extinction doesn't compare with everyday survival - eliminate
Option C - if anything, this actually strengthens - eliminate
Option D - bingo this is our answer - this says explicitly that fossil evidence is incomplete
Option E - tens of millions of years are compared with what? it could be 100 or more - we don't have enough data to look closer into this - eliminate
our option is D
Option A - genetic divergence is okay but this doesn't weaken the conclusion - eliminate
Option B - global extinction doesn't compare with everyday survival - eliminate
Option C - if anything, this actually strengthens - eliminate
Option D - bingo this is our answer - this says explicitly that fossil evidence is incomplete
Option E - tens of millions of years are compared with what? it could be 100 or more - we don't have enough data to look closer into this - eliminate
our option is D
Bunuel
Archit3110
Major Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Last visit: 11 Sep 2026
Posts: 8,816
Status:You learn more from failure than from success.
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q79 V79 DI73 
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81 
GPA: 4
WE:Marketing (Energy)
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
Posts: 8,816
In analyzing the fossil record, paleontologists have found that species with broader geographic ranges tend to survive longer than those with more localized habitats. One explanation is that widespread species are more resilient to localized environmental disturbances, such as droughts or disease outbreaks. Consequently, researchers argue that species with larger habitat ranges are more likely to persist over evolutionary timescales than those with limited distribution.
local species are not able to survive droughts & disease out breaks... as broader range species can... they can also persist over evolutionary timescales..
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the argument above?
A. Species with broad geographic ranges often experience high levels of genetic divergence across subpopulations, making them more vulnerable to speciation and eventual extinction.
if this is true then broad geographic species can get extinct earlier than local....
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species.
this is not a weakener as we do not have count or how many exactly got extinct
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes.
this is strengthener to localized species , not a strong weakener for broad geographic species...
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions.
does not weaken the argument....
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change.
irrelevant option which is not aligned with argument
OPTION A is correct
local species are not able to survive droughts & disease out breaks... as broader range species can... they can also persist over evolutionary timescales..
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the argument above?
A. Species with broad geographic ranges often experience high levels of genetic divergence across subpopulations, making them more vulnerable to speciation and eventual extinction.
if this is true then broad geographic species can get extinct earlier than local....
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species.
this is not a weakener as we do not have count or how many exactly got extinct
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes.
this is strengthener to localized species , not a strong weakener for broad geographic species...
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions.
does not weaken the argument....
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change.
irrelevant option which is not aligned with argument
OPTION A is correct
Answer D
Option D most seriously weakens the argument because it says that the evidence (fossils) on which the argument depends is incomplete.
A suggests a possible risk for a widespread species, but this doesn't understand the argument as much as D.
B uses the specific case of mass extension but this doesn't undermine the general trend that the argument talks about.
C suggests a reason why species that are more localised may have a higher survival rate, but this doesn't strongly undermine the argument.
E shows some exceptions, but this doesn't undermine the general claim.
Option D most seriously weakens the argument because it says that the evidence (fossils) on which the argument depends is incomplete.
A suggests a possible risk for a widespread species, but this doesn't understand the argument as much as D.
B uses the specific case of mass extension but this doesn't undermine the general trend that the argument talks about.
C suggests a reason why species that are more localised may have a higher survival rate, but this doesn't strongly undermine the argument.
E shows some exceptions, but this doesn't undermine the general claim.
adityamntr
Joined: 15 Jul 2023
Last visit: 21 Feb 2026
Posts: 112
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27
Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27
Posts: 112
Bunuel
A) gives a differnt reason, but does not prove intinal one wrong
B) provides direct example of how long ranged species went extinct, whereas the short one survived. hence weakens
C) gives reaosn why localised specie ma sirvive better, but doesn not weaken abve
D) this is rasing quesiton on premise, not reaosnable
E)show example for localised species, but do not weaken the arguemnt.
Posts: 1,382
Species with BGR live longer than species with LH -> BGR are more likely to persist over evolutionary timescale than LH
A - This is correct. Just because BGR live longer doesn't mean they can persist over evolutionary timescale. May be the current environment is better suitable but this might not be always true
B - talks about the past, not necessary this will continue. Also it talks about extinction whereas conclusion is about comparative probability
C - this doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion. This could happen and still BGR have better survival probability
D - this attacks the evidence but the conclusion isn't based on the species representation, it's a generic statement made based on what's available - which could be limited
E - this just gives an exception, which doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion.
A - This is correct. Just because BGR live longer doesn't mean they can persist over evolutionary timescale. May be the current environment is better suitable but this might not be always true
B - talks about the past, not necessary this will continue. Also it talks about extinction whereas conclusion is about comparative probability
C - this doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion. This could happen and still BGR have better survival probability
D - this attacks the evidence but the conclusion isn't based on the species representation, it's a generic statement made based on what's available - which could be limited
E - this just gives an exception, which doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion.
Bunuel
Posts: 103
Argument - Broader geographic range = longer survival than species with localized habitat
Reasoning - Better resilience to environmental disturbances.
A. Shows vulnerability of divergence but not clearly comment on comparison of survival with localized species. Hence no.
B. Surviving species had smaller habitat range and those with larger range went extinct. Proposes evidence opposed to the argument. Hence best option.
C. Talks about localized species and increased chances of survival from environmental changes but doesn't compare with broad range species. Hence no.
D. Shows vulnerability of the fossil records themselves rather than comparing the species ranges for survivability. Could be used to question the data but doesn't impact the argument presented. Hence no.
E. Some species may be an exception due to adaptation or limited environment changes but doesn't present whole picture of comparison. Hence no.
Best choice for answer Option B
Reasoning - Better resilience to environmental disturbances.
A. Shows vulnerability of divergence but not clearly comment on comparison of survival with localized species. Hence no.
B. Surviving species had smaller habitat range and those with larger range went extinct. Proposes evidence opposed to the argument. Hence best option.
C. Talks about localized species and increased chances of survival from environmental changes but doesn't compare with broad range species. Hence no.
D. Shows vulnerability of the fossil records themselves rather than comparing the species ranges for survivability. Could be used to question the data but doesn't impact the argument presented. Hence no.
E. Some species may be an exception due to adaptation or limited environment changes but doesn't present whole picture of comparison. Hence no.
Best choice for answer Option B
Posts: 44
Bunuel
Lets consider the options:
A: Mentions speciation and eventual extinction in theory but never shows broad ranges reduce overall persistence. Incorrect
B: Gives clear cases where wide-range species still went extinct while smaller range ones survived, directly contradicting the claim. Correct
C: Allows some localized species to survive specific changes but does not challenge the general advantage of broad ranges. Incorrect
D: Questions data completeness, not the logical claim that broad ranges would confer resilience if the pattern is real. Incorrect
E: Provides rare long-lived narrow range exceptions, which do not overturn a probabilistic "more likely to persist" statement. Incorrect
Option B
Species with larger habitat ranges are more likely to persist over evolutionary timescales than those with limited distribution.
A. It suggests that widespread species could actually be at greater risk, despite their broader range........Maybe
B. It suggest that lareger range do not guarantee survival as several species that went extinct during past global extinction events.....it mainly says about global extinction events.......No
C. It says that small range species can sometimes survie well........No
D. Fossil evidence being incomplete mainly attacks the evidence, it suggest that observed pattern might be due to bias........Maybe
E. It only talks about some species......No
D
A. It suggests that widespread species could actually be at greater risk, despite their broader range........Maybe
B. It suggest that lareger range do not guarantee survival as several species that went extinct during past global extinction events.....it mainly says about global extinction events.......No
C. It says that small range species can sometimes survie well........No
D. Fossil evidence being incomplete mainly attacks the evidence, it suggest that observed pattern might be due to bias........Maybe
E. It only talks about some species......No
D
A. Species with broad geographic ranges often experience high levels of genetic divergence across subpopulations, making them more vulnerable to speciation and eventual extinction. Correct. The same factor while helps to face environmental disturbance affects the population genetically, leading to extinction, and hence may not persist as expected in argument.
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species. While this slightly weakens the reasoning showing past data, it doesn't explicitly rule out that some other causes have led to such extinction. On absence of such a cause, larger range species could have survived longer.
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes. While the chances may increase, the option doesn't throw light how are these chances wrt chances of broader range species.
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions. This tries to attack the fossil evidence. However, we have to undermine the logic drawn from the fossils.
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change. What proportion is 'some' representing? A very large number? If small number have persisted, then no conclusion can be drawn.
Ans A
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species. While this slightly weakens the reasoning showing past data, it doesn't explicitly rule out that some other causes have led to such extinction. On absence of such a cause, larger range species could have survived longer.
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes. While the chances may increase, the option doesn't throw light how are these chances wrt chances of broader range species.
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions. This tries to attack the fossil evidence. However, we have to undermine the logic drawn from the fossils.
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change. What proportion is 'some' representing? A very large number? If small number have persisted, then no conclusion can be drawn.
Ans A
rahumangal
Joined: 20 Nov 2022
Last visit: 17 Jun 2026
Posts: 71
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.99
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Products:
Posts: 71
Bunuel
One of the ways to weaken an argument is to to that conclusion doesn't follow from the premise /evidence/fact, and this might help us in solving this weaken question
A. Species with broad geographic ranges often experience high levels of genetic divergence across subpopulations, making them more vulnerable to speciation and eventual extinction.
Although it shows that species with broad geographic ranges & due to genetic variation the sub-population may last longer might seem to provide an alternate reasoning as to why they survive longer than short range species ,but it says nothing about the overall species /main population. The quantifier word "often "might mean the divergence occurs very very rarely and overall the species live longer due to environment adaption and not divergence.It is a good contender and slightly weakens.- Keep for now
B. Several species that went extinct during past global extinction events had significantly larger habitat ranges than many surviving species.
Several species that went extinct were of broad habitat range, but we don't know about the habitat range of those surviving and it may/maynot be that majority of surviving species might be having wide habitat range also we are mostly dealing with broad geographical habitat range & localized environmental disturbance, but the option focuses on an event on global level which affects all habitats at the same time and any geographical advantage might not be helphul at that time- OUT
C. Localized species are often better adapted to niche ecosystems and may evolve specialized traits that increase their chances of surviving specific environmental changes.
This option talks about species that adapt to niche ecosystem but it does not tell anything about species that adapt to broad geographical range and whether that helps in survival or not- Ireelevant
D. Fossil evidence is incomplete and may overrepresent species with larger ranges, which are more likely to leave behind fossil traces across regions.
This option shows that the evidence used to come to the the conclusion might in itself be incorrect representation of the species and so the conclusion reached might be wrong . This defoinitlely weaken the arguemeny.---Correct
E. Some species with limited geographic ranges have persisted for tens of millions of years without significant change.
This option talks about some species that have limited range and long existence without adaptation but does not talk anything about broad range adaptation and longer survival that might help us in weakening the arguement- OUT
Posts: 165
Finding: Species with broader geographical ranges survive longer than with localized habitats.
Explanation of finding: More resilient
Main Point: Species with larger habitat ranges are likely to persist over evolutionary timescales.
Basis: As larger habitat ones are resilient as shown by finding.
(A) Not Correct.
(B) Not Correct. Reverse argument.
(C) Irrelevant
(D) Correct, as it makes the finding weaker by saying sample may not right. Hence it weakens the argument.
(E) Does not undermine the argument
Explanation of finding: More resilient
Main Point: Species with larger habitat ranges are likely to persist over evolutionary timescales.
Basis: As larger habitat ones are resilient as shown by finding.
(A) Not Correct.
(B) Not Correct. Reverse argument.
(C) Irrelevant
(D) Correct, as it makes the finding weaker by saying sample may not right. Hence it weakens the argument.
(E) Does not undermine the argument
A - No information about species with limited distribution.
B - With information about several species we can't generalise.
C - Correct as it attacks the reasoning given in premise.
D - Out of scope
E - We can't generalise with this information.
B - With information about several species we can't generalise.
C - Correct as it attacks the reasoning given in premise.
D - Out of scope
E - We can't generalise with this information.
Bunuel
The passage talks about more chances of survivability with a conclusion that these species can persist over multiple evolutions. This jump in premise to conclusion may be attacked.
A - This is our answer as it directly attacks the link between premise and conclusion. Although there are more chances of current survival, they may still be vulnerable to extinction over multiple evolutionary periods.
B - We do not know the cause of extinction of these species. It may have been the case that these species were overrepresented in the past and thus formed a larger share.
C - Localised species may be better adapted to niche ecosystems, but the passage offers a premise that species with wide geographic ranges tend to survive more.
D - Overrepresentation of these species does not attack the link between current survivability and evolutionary survival over time.
E - We do not know how much 'some' is. A small number need not weaken our conclusion as the argument allows for the same.
Therefore, Option A IMO
A - This is our answer as it directly attacks the link between premise and conclusion. Although there are more chances of current survival, they may still be vulnerable to extinction over multiple evolutionary periods.
B - We do not know the cause of extinction of these species. It may have been the case that these species were overrepresented in the past and thus formed a larger share.
C - Localised species may be better adapted to niche ecosystems, but the passage offers a premise that species with wide geographic ranges tend to survive more.
D - Overrepresentation of these species does not attack the link between current survivability and evolutionary survival over time.
E - We do not know how much 'some' is. A small number need not weaken our conclusion as the argument allows for the same.
Therefore, Option A IMO
AditiDeokar
Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Last visit: 21 May 2026
Posts: 86
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: NUS ESSEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiF '26 INSEAD MiM '26 ESADE Imperial ISB '26 ESADE HEC Sept '26 IE INSEAD Jan '26
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q77 V77 DI74
GPA: 3.5
Schools: NUS ESSEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiF '26 INSEAD MiM '26 ESADE Imperial ISB '26 ESADE HEC Sept '26 IE INSEAD Jan '26
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q77 V77 DI74
Posts: 86
The answer choice is D. The argument assumes that as fossils were found for species with broader geographic ranges, that these survive longer than those with localised habitats. But what if there are simply more fossils available for species with broader geograohic regions as they take up more space? Breaks the argument.
Posts: 125
conclusion: species distributed over larger habitats more likely to survive extinctions than those living in smaller habitats
because those in smaller habitats tend to get affected by local environmental disturbances such as droughts or disease outbreaks.
premise : from fossil records -> species distributed over larger habitats tend to survive longer than those living in smaller habitats
So an observation was made. Conclusion is that the observation is because of one phenomenon.
A.widespread ones may go through speciation, thus become local and then eventually extinct. But the reason given in the argument that widespread ones compared to local ones have higher chance of survival (or longer duration) doesnt get affected.
B. several or some species in the long range got extinct. There will always be some. But that doesn't weaken the conclusion.
C.opposite of premise. Doesn't weaken the logic in the question.
D.Correct. This throws doubt on the observation itself that only those species who tend to live over larger habitats tend have their fossils available. So availability of fossils cannot be used to make a judgement.
E. Some local ones persisted 10s of millions of years. 1. may be they didnt get the local environmental disturbances. 2. just because some didn't , the overall conclusion can still hold
ans: D
because those in smaller habitats tend to get affected by local environmental disturbances such as droughts or disease outbreaks.
premise : from fossil records -> species distributed over larger habitats tend to survive longer than those living in smaller habitats
So an observation was made. Conclusion is that the observation is because of one phenomenon.
A.widespread ones may go through speciation, thus become local and then eventually extinct. But the reason given in the argument that widespread ones compared to local ones have higher chance of survival (or longer duration) doesnt get affected.
B. several or some species in the long range got extinct. There will always be some. But that doesn't weaken the conclusion.
C.opposite of premise. Doesn't weaken the logic in the question.
D.Correct. This throws doubt on the observation itself that only those species who tend to live over larger habitats tend have their fossils available. So availability of fossils cannot be used to make a judgement.
E. Some local ones persisted 10s of millions of years. 1. may be they didnt get the local environmental disturbances. 2. just because some didn't , the overall conclusion can still hold
ans: D
Moderators:
Announcements
How to Tell If Your GMAT Prep Resources Are Actually Helping You
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.