So what the heck is up with Question #2?
csaluja wrote:
GMATNinjaTwo,
Hi GMATNinja, I was wondering could you please explain the difference between option B and E for Q2? I ended up picking option E but it was more of a lucky guess. Would greatly appreciate it if you could please shed some light on option B especially!
PAVANIJOSHI374 wrote:
Hi,
I have a similar doubt.. For Q2, option B & option E are very similar.
How does one choose the right one?
Please help!!
Izzyjolly wrote:
I was down to B and D and ended up choosing B because I thought that the 2nd passage end in line 29.
How can we eliminate option B here? Please help.
manishk30 wrote:
I also thought that the para 2 is ending at line 29 and chose the wrong option on that basis.
Indeed, the formatting for this particular passage makes it very tough for us to tell where one paragraph begins and the other ends. (
Bunuel, any idea how to fix the formatting? You're the best technical wizard in the GMAT Club family.
)
Anyway, a closer look at the 2018
OG reveals that:
- Paragraph 1 ends with the words, "development of the vertebrate skeleton."
- Paragraph 2 ends with the words, "the earliest vertebrates were predators."
- Paragraph 3 begins with the words, "The stiffening notochord."
Here's paragraph 2 (P2) in full:Quote:
The vertebrate skeleton had traditionally been regarded as a defensive development, champions of this view postulating that it was only with the much later evolution of jaws that vertebrates became predators. The first vertebrates, which were soft-bodied, would have been easy prey for numerous invertebrate carnivores, especially if these early vertebrates were sedentary suspension feeders. Thus, traditionalists argued, these animals developed coverings of bony scales or plates, and teeth were secondary features, adapted from the protective bony scales. Indeed, external skeletons of this type are common among the well-known fossils of ostracoderms, jawless vertebrates that existed from approximately 500 to 400 million years ago. However, other paleontologists argued that many of the definitive characteristics of vertebrates, such as paired eyes and muscular and skeletal adaptations for active life, would not have evolved unless the first vertebrates were predatory. Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view, and the earliest vertebrates were predators.
This clarification might resolve a lot of doubts about the passage and question #2. But let's break it down to eliminate any lingering confusion.
Quote:
The second paragraph in the passage serves primarily to
OK, so why did the author write this paragraph?
P1 has already told us that the 1981 discovery -- of conodont remains along with conodont fossils -- has had important implications for hypotheses about the vertebrate skeleton.
In P2, the author then presents two opposing hypotheses about the vertebrate skeleton: The traditional view that it was a defensive development and an opposing view that the skeletal adaptations were part of a predatory evolution. The author offer some details for each side's hypothesis, but the point of the paragraph is to show us these two sides.
Let's see which answer choices line up with our understanding:
Quote:
A. outline the significance of the 1981 discovery of conodont remains to the debate concerning the development of the vertebrate skeleton
Nope! P2 doesn't
outline the significance of this discovery in any way. The reason that the author writes P2 is to tell us about opposing hypotheses, not get further into the details of the 1981 discovery. Eliminate (A).
Quote:
B. contrast the traditional view of the development of the vertebrate skeleton with a view derived from the 1981 discovery of conodont remains
(B) is very tempting, but when you read closely, two thoughts should come to mind:
- Is the author writing P2 to contrast two views?
- Are the views being contrasted "the traditional view of development of the vertebrate skeleton" and "a view derived from the 1981 discovery"?
You could argue that yes, the author is contrasting two hypotheses. And one of those hypotheses
is the traditional view of how and why the vertebrate skeleton developed. We are close to keeping this answer choice.
But when you refer back to the passage, was the second view (of early vertebrates as predators) "derived from the 1981 discovery"? Not quite. The second paragraph doesn't create a link between the view of predatory evolution and the 1981 discovery of conodont remains. The second paragraph doesn't even mention conodonts. That's why we eliminate (B) -- or at the very least, avoid falling in love with (B) right away.
Quote:
C. contrast the characteristics of the ostracoderms with the characteristics of earlier soft-bodied vertebrates
The author didn't write the second paragraph in order to contrast
the characteristics of these two groups. Eliminate (C).
Quote:
D. explain the importance of the development of teeth among the earliest vertebrate predators
Choice (D) tempts us by identifying
a thing that the author did in P2. But this choice doesn't tell us
the reason why the author wrote P2. Because (D) is not answering the question we were asked, we can eliminate it without hesitation.
Quote:
E. present the two sides of the debate concerning the development of the vertebrate skeleton
Here we are! Choice (E) does seem similar to Choice (B), but it doesn't make the mistake of naming the wrong sides of this debate. Instead, (E) matches exactly what we know: The author wrote the paragraph in order to present two opposing hypotheses.
This answers the question directly, doesn't add any erroneous wrinkles, and doesn't get stuck on narrow details that miss the purpose of the paragraph. That's why (E) is distinct from (B) and (D). That's also why (E) is the best available choice.
I hope this explanation turned your "conodon'ts" into "can dos"! Please forgive my humor, it's an evolutionary defense mechanism against eye-burning GMAT passages. And I'm practicing my terrible "dad jokes" for when my daughter is old enough to understand them and roll her eyes at me...
I realize that you covered question 580 (According to the passage, the anatomical evidence provided by the preserved soft bodies of conodonts led scientists to conclude that) in detail. However, I just want to make sure that I am pulling the right support from the passage to justify the correct answer. The support is: "The lack of any mineralized structures apart from the elements in the mouth indicates that conodonts were more primitive than the armored jawless fishes such as the ostracoderms". "Apart from elements in the mouth" refers to teeth, correct?
For question 581 (the second paragraph in the passage serves primarily to), can someone explain why Choice B is wrong in more detail?
close
01 Feb 2022, 08:44
