It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 04:38

# TODAY:

MIT Sloan Releasing 1st Wave of Interview Invites - Join GMATClub CHAT for Live Updates

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Which of following most logically completes the argument?

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 78
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2015, 02:37
nitinlgb wrote:
C

karlfurt wrote:
why not D?
If the paintings were made well before 16000 years ago, it could be at a time when the deers had a hump which could have disapeared progressively.

D could be easily refuted by an argument - that may be the painting depict some other species of deer (which lived in the different time period) rather than the one in question. C is best suited here.

Also the focus is on the hump, being in the fossil or not. So C is better option than D.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 916
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M)
GPA: 3.71
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2016, 04:22
Looking at option D, we cannot confirm that the paintings are accurate wrt animal having a large hump back if they are drawn before 16,000 years ago when some of the deers were alive.
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 507
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2017, 00:51
C it is- if humps cant turn into fossils => cant prove paintings are incorrect.
_________________

Give Kudos for correct answer and/or if you like the solution.

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1907
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2017, 20:32
D is a trap. Although D looks like a common a pattern that relates with the timeline, D in this question does not have that pattern.
Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 891
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2017, 10:14
Hi mikemcgarry,

Isn't option C refuting the premise: Fossils are found without a hump.

Argument is pretty straightforward that paintings are not incorrect even though we have fossils without hump.

_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4680
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2017, 18:20
gmatexam439 wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry,

Isn't option C refuting the premise: Fossils are found without a hump.

Argument is pretty straightforward that paintings are not incorrect even though we have fossils without hump.

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond

My friend, many students labor under the misconception that ALL outside information is irrelevant to the GMAT CR. It's true that one doesn't need specific knowledge of the topic--in this instance, the giant deer--but one definitely has to have a sense of how the real world works. Think about it. Why does the GMAT ask Critical Reasoning questions? The GMAT has this question precisely because managers in the real world need to evaluate arguments of all kinds every day. In order to be successful on the GMAT CR, you have to have a keen sense of the business world and you need to have a grasp of the basic scientific facts that everyone learns in school. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

Choice (C) does NOT refute the premise. Fossils are made of bone. Bone, the only rock-like part of the body, is the only part that endures like rock for centuries, even millennia. By contrast, the humps that these giant deer had were "fatty tissue, which doos not fossilize." Much in the same way, if you looked, say, at the skeleton of a camel, you wouldn't see the spine curve up into the humps. The humps of a camel are a real anatomical feature that we can see, but this feature is not reflected in the skeleton.

The live animal, whether the ancient giant deer or the modern camel, has the fatty humps we can see: they are part of the living animal. Ancient cave painters, seeing the living giant deer, would have seen its hump. When the animal dies and rots away, so only the rock-like bones of the fossil are left, no hump would be visible on either animal. Thus, the animal really has a hump and the fossil doesn't.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 891
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2017, 05:21
mikemcgarry wrote:
gmatexam439 wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry,

Isn't option C refuting the premise: Fossils are found without a hump.

Argument is pretty straightforward that paintings are not incorrect even though we have fossils without hump.

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond

My friend, many students labor under the misconception that ALL outside information is irrelevant to the GMAT CR. It's true that one doesn't need specific knowledge of the topic--in this instance, the giant deer--but one definitely has to have a sense of how the real world works. Think about it. Why does the GMAT ask Critical Reasoning questions? The GMAT has this question precisely because managers in the real world need to evaluate arguments of all kinds every day. In order to be successful on the GMAT CR, you have to have a keen sense of the business world and you need to have a grasp of the basic scientific facts that everyone learns in school. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

Choice (C) does NOT refute the premise. Fossils are made of bone. Bone, the only rock-like part of the body, is the only part that endures like rock for centuries, even millennia. By contrast, the humps that these giant deer had were "fatty tissue, which doos not fossilize." Much in the same way, if you looked, say, at the skeleton of a camel, you wouldn't see the spine curve up into the humps. The humps of a camel are a real anatomical feature that we can see, but this feature is not reflected in the skeleton.

The live animal, whether the ancient giant deer or the modern camel, has the fatty humps we can see: they are part of the living animal. Ancient cave painters, seeing the living giant deer, would have seen its hump. When the animal dies and rots away, so only the rock-like bones of the fossil are left, no hump would be visible on either animal. Thus, the animal really has a hump and the fossil doesn't.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thank you mikemcgarry for the quick response.

But isn't the language used in the option bit extreme -- "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize". Maybe a better structure would have been such as "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize EASILY".

This creates a lot of difference. I understand that we need to use outside information smartly, but we need to be wary of "exaggerated options" also.

Regards
_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4680
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2018, 10:13
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
gmatexam439 wrote:
Thank you mikemcgarry for the quick response.

But isn't the language used in the option bit extreme -- "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize". Maybe a better structure would have been such as "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize EASILY".

This creates a lot of difference. I understand that we need to use outside information smartly, but we need to be wary of "exaggerated options" also.

Regards

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, context is everything! Don't get caught in the trap of applying a one-size-fits-all rule.

Think about it. In human affairs--the business world, the political realm, social movements, etc.--there really is no true "always" or "never" statement. The human realm is one of exceptions. This is precisely why extreme statements on these issues are suspect. There are general trends, of course--most scientists would say that evolution is scientifically accepted, most people flying for business fly first class, most environmentalists are politically liberal, etc. All of those and many other similar statements are perfectly true with "most" but would be false with "all."

By contrast, the natural sciences and mathematics are realms were things frequently are always or never true.
No multiple of 12 is a prime number.
A positive electrical charge is always attracted to a negative charge.
When an object is accelerating, this acceleration always indicates the presence of an unbalanced force.
Soft animal tissue (i.e. not bone, teeth, shell, etc.) never fossilizes.

Those may be "extreme" sounding statements, but they are perfectly true.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 891
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2018, 10:18
mikemcgarry wrote:
gmatexam439 wrote:
Thank you mikemcgarry for the quick response.

But isn't the language used in the option bit extreme -- "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize". Maybe a better structure would have been such as "animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize EASILY".

This creates a lot of difference. I understand that we need to use outside information smartly, but we need to be wary of "exaggerated options" also.

Regards

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, context is everything! Don't get caught in the trap of applying a one-size-fits-all rule.

Think about it. In human affairs--the business world, the political realm, social movements, etc.--there really is no true "always" or "never" statement. The human realm is one of exceptions. This is precisely why extreme statements on these issues are suspect. There are general trends, of course--most scientists would say that evolution is scientifically accepted, most people flying for business fly first class, most environmentalists are politically liberal, etc. All of those and many other similar statements are perfectly true with "most" but would be false with "all."

By contrast, the natural sciences and mathematics are realms were things frequently are always or never true.
No multiple of 12 is a prime number.
A positive electrical charge is always attracted to a negative charge.
When an object is accelerating, this acceleration always indicates the presence of an unbalanced force.
Soft animal tissue (i.e. not bone, teeth, shell, etc.) never fossilizes.

Those may be "extreme" sounding statements, but they are perfectly true.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hello mikemcgarry,

This makes a lot of sense Mike. Thank you for your patience

Regards
_________________
Re: Which of following most logically completes the argument?   [#permalink] 02 Jan 2018, 10:18

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by