Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 00:07 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 00:07
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
sondenso
User avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Last visit: 04 Dec 2018
Posts: 858
Own Kudos:
7,460
Given Kudos: 1
Concentration: Finance
Schools:CBS, Kellogg
Posts: 858
Kudos: 7,460
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 21:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.


In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is evidence on which the argument base to make hypothesis.
(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases
in which that generalization does not hold.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
wizardofwashington
User avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Last visit: 03 Dec 2008
Posts: 122
Own Kudos:
94
Posts: 122
Kudos: 94
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 22:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sondenso
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.


In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is evidence on which the argument base to make hypothesis.
(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases
in which that generalization does not hold.
Show more

Should be A? This is a really tough one for me. I spent more minutes on this one battling between choices E & A.
User avatar
sondenso
User avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Last visit: 04 Dec 2018
Posts: 858
Own Kudos:
7,460
Given Kudos: 1
Concentration: Finance
Schools:CBS, Kellogg
Posts: 858
Kudos: 7,460
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 22:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
wizardofwashington
I spent more minutes on this one battling between choices E & A
Show more

How many minutes you spent on this battle? Lucky you, OA is not A :lol:
User avatar
wizardofwashington
User avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Last visit: 03 Dec 2008
Posts: 122
Own Kudos:
94
Posts: 122
Kudos: 94
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 22:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sondenso
wizardofwashington
I spent more minutes on this one battling between choices E & A

How many minutes you spent on this battle? Lucky you, OA is not A :lol:
Show more

Hahaha.. I thought so. Anyway, I spent more than 2 minutes, which is a big no-no on the exam day. So, I'd have battled for 90 secs and moved on with a pick (which was A). You better post the OA soon before I get admitted to a mental health clinic. This question has all the potential to give me a TBI.
User avatar
raconteur
User avatar
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Last visit: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
48
Posts: 91
Kudos: 48
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 22:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ugh. Tough but I'm going with C.

A. the second part doesn't match imo.
B. the author doesn't oppose the 2nd part.
C. He does challenge the 1st part with the next sentence "the notion that cold killed...". Also, the 2nd acts as supportive evidence by explaining how bottom-dwellers relied on plankton.
D. The 2nd part doesn't match... it's not the author's conclusion.
E. The 2nd part doesn't mention any exceptions.

sondenso
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.


In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is evidence on which the argument base to make hypothesis.
(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases
in which that generalization does not hold.
Show more
User avatar
rohit929
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Last visit: 07 Oct 2008
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
56
Posts: 26
Kudos: 56
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 22:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
raconteur
Ugh. Tough but I'm going with C.

A. the second part doesn't match imo.
B. the author doesn't oppose the 2nd part.
C. He does challenge the 1st part with the next sentence "the notion that cold killed...". Also, the 2nd acts as supportive evidence by explaining how bottom-dwellers relied on plankton.
D. The 2nd part doesn't match... it's not the author's conclusion.
E. The 2nd part doesn't mention any exceptions.

sondenso
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.


In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is evidence on which the argument base to make hypothesis.
(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases
in which that generalization does not hold.
Show more

c for me 2
User avatar
tharunv
User avatar
Joined: 19 May 2008
Last visit: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
60
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 72
Kudos: 60
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 22:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C is the answer
User avatar
lexis
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Last visit: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 218
Own Kudos:
2,198
Posts: 218
Kudos: 2,198
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 23:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sondenso
Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.


In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgment offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is evidence on which the argument base to make hypothesis.
(D) The first is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases
in which that generalization does not hold.
Show more


B: No opposition.
D: Second is not conclusion.
E: No exceptional case. Because plankton died as a result of severe temperature.

A: No judgment.
C: no CHALLENGE

I can not find any challenges in first bold. However, C is the better than A. Because "challenge" is more acceptable than "judgment".
User avatar
sondenso
User avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Last visit: 04 Dec 2018
Posts: 858
Own Kudos:
7,460
Given Kudos: 1
Concentration: Finance
Schools:CBS, Kellogg
Posts: 858
Kudos: 7,460
GmatPrep. BF 05 Jun 2008, 23:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OA is C



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
miag
189 posts
u1983
Current Student
710 posts
MikeScarn
Current Student
275 posts