Researchers have been studying the skeletal remains of a mastodon excavated from the Overmyer farm in Indiana in the United...

GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions

Source: Mock

Reading Comprehension

Bio Sciences

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Researchers have been studying the skeletal remains of a mastodon excavated from the Overmyer farm in Indiana in the United States. Previously, scientists claimed that mastodons whose remains were discovered in former wetland environments, like the Overmyer site, had drowned after breaking through a quaking bog-a pond covered by a mat of floating vegetation. This site's sedimentary evidence, however, indicates that the area had been a small open-water pond at the time the mastodon died.

Another common claim is that mastodons died after becoming mired in swamps. The wet areas that mastodons frequented may have provided abundant opportunities to become irretrievably stuck, but an animal adapted for feeding in wetlands generally should be able to avoid such a fate. Furthermore, based on the depth and distribution of its remains, the Overmyer mastodon's hind leg would have been mired in about forty-seven centimeters of pond mud, or less than halfway up its lower leg. A healthy animal would plausibly have to sink much further than mid-shin to become irretrievably stuck. And, if the mastodon had become mired, more of its bones would have been buried and preserved in closer association with each other. The researchers concluded that the bones may have gradually come loose and sunk to the bottom of the pond from the floating carcass as it decomposed.

Ques. 1/3

The passage most strongly suggests that mastodons

likely fed in wetlands

were not strong swimmers

had little buoyancy

often became mired in swamps

tended to avoid mats of floating vegetation

Solution

1. Passage Analysis:

Progressive Passage Analysis

Text from Passage	Analysis
Researchers have been studying the skeletal remains of a mastodon excavated from the Overmyer farm in Indiana in the United States.	What it says: Scientists are examining bones from an extinct elephant-like animal found at a specific farm. What it does: Sets up the topic and context - introduces the subject of study Source/Type: Factual statement about ongoing research Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Picture: Archaeological dig site → Scientists examining large fossilized bones in a laboratory Reading Strategy Insight: This is just scene-setting. Don't overthink it - we're learning about a fossil discovery. What We Know So Far: Research is happening on mastodon bones from Indiana What We Don't Know Yet: Why this research matters, what they're trying to figure out
Previously, scientists claimed that mastodons whose remains were discovered in former wetland environments, like the Overmyer site, had drowned after breaking through a quaking bog-a pond covered by a mat of floating vegetation.	What it says: Scientists used to think mastodons died by falling through fake ground that looked solid but was actually floating plants over water. What it does: Introduces the old explanation for how mastodons died in wet areas Source/Type: Previous scientific claims/theories Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 1 by explaining what scientists USED TO THINK about the Overmyer site specifically. We're learning the background theory. Visualization: Picture: Mastodon walking on what looks like solid ground → Plant mat breaks → Mastodon falls through into deep water below → Drowning Reading Strategy Insight: Key word "Previously" signals this is an OLD theory we're about to challenge. What We Know So Far: (1) Mastodon bones found in Indiana wetland (2) Old theory: they drowned by breaking through floating vegetation What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this old theory is correct for the Overmyer mastodon
This site's sedimentary evidence, however, indicates that the area had been a small open-water pond at the time the mastodon died.	What it says: The dirt layers prove this was actually just a regular small pond, not a bog with floating plants. What it does: Contradicts the previous theory with new evidence Source/Type: Physical evidence from the archaeological site Connection to Previous Sentences: This CONTRASTS with Sentence 2. Scientists thought: floating vegetation over water. Reality: just open water. The "however" signals the contradiction. Visualization: OLD THEORY: [Floating plants covering water] vs. REALITY: [Simple open pond with visible water surface] Reading Strategy Insight: This is classic RC structure - old theory gets debunked by new evidence. Feel confident: you understand the basic disagreement. What We Know So Far: (1) Mastodon died in Indiana pond (2) Old theory wrong - wasn't a bog, was open water What We Don't Know Yet: So how DID the mastodon die?
Another common claim is that mastodons died after becoming mired in swamps.	What it says: Scientists also used to think mastodons got stuck in muddy swamp areas and couldn't get out. What it does: Introduces a second old theory about mastodon deaths Source/Type: Another previous scientific claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on our pattern from Sentences 2-3. We debunked Theory #1 (drowning in bog), now here's Theory #2 (getting stuck in swamps). "Another" connects this to the previous theory. Visualization: Mastodon walks into swampy area → Feet sink into thick mud → Can't pull legs out → Dies trapped Reading Strategy Insight: Pattern recognition! Just like the bog theory, this is probably another theory we're about to debunk. What We Know So Far: Two old theories about mastodon death: (1) Bog drowning - debunked (2) Swamp miring - probably about to be debunked What We Don't Know Yet: The evidence against the swamp theory
The wet areas that mastodons frequented may have provided abundant opportunities to become irretrievably stuck, but an animal adapted for feeding in wetlands generally should be able to avoid such a fate.	What it says: While swamps could trap animals, mastodons were built for living in wet areas, so they probably knew how to avoid getting stuck. What it does: Provides logical reasoning against the swamp theory Source/Type: Logical inference based on mastodon biology/behavior Connection to Previous Sentences: This responds directly to Sentence 4. The swamp theory says they got stuck, BUT this sentence argues mastodons were too well-adapted to swamps for that to happen regularly. Visualization: Mastodon = Wetland specialist (like how a duck doesn't drown in water even though water can drown other animals) Reading Strategy Insight: This is common sense reasoning - animals adapted to an environment don't usually die from that environment's normal hazards. What We Know So Far: Theory #2 (swamp miring) is weak because mastodons were swamp experts What We Don't Know Yet: Specific evidence from the Overmyer mastodon bones
Furthermore, based on the depth and distribution of its remains, the Overmyer mastodon's hind leg would have been mired in about forty-seven centimeters of pond mud, or less than halfway up its lower leg.	What it says: Looking at where the bones were found, this particular mastodon's back leg was only stuck about 47 cm (roughly 18 inches) deep in mud - not even up to its "knee." What it does: Provides specific physical evidence from the Overmyer site against the miring theory Source/Type: Measurement data from the bone positions Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentences 4-5 with concrete evidence. We've had the logical argument (mastodons were adapted), now here's the physical proof (bones show shallow sinking). Visualization: Large mastodon leg → 47 cm of mud around lower portion → Still plenty of leg above the mud line → Should be able to pull free Reading Strategy Insight: Concrete numbers make this easier, not harder. 47 cm isn't very deep for a massive animal. What We Know So Far: Swamp miring theory fails both logical test (mastodons were adapted) AND physical evidence (only 47 cm deep) What We Don't Know Yet: How deep would be "too deep" to escape?
A healthy animal would plausibly have to sink much further than mid-shin to become irretrievably stuck.	What it says: A healthy mastodon would need to be stuck much deeper than mid-shin level to be unable to escape. What it does: Restates and clarifies the previous sentence in simpler terms Source/Type: Logical conclusion based on animal capabilities Connection to Previous Sentences: This RESTATES Sentence 6 more simply. Sentence 6: "47 cm, less than halfway up lower leg." NOW Sentence 7: "much deeper than mid-shin needed." Same point, simpler language. Visualization: ACTUAL: Mud up to mid-shin vs. NEEDED FOR TRAPPING: Mud much higher up the leg Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity! The author is helping you understand the previous technical measurement. What We Know So Far: 47 cm wasn't nearly deep enough to trap a healthy mastodon What We Don't Know Yet: Any other evidence against the miring theory
And, if the mastodon had become mired, more of its bones would have been buried and preserved in closer association with each other.	What it says: If the mastodon really got stuck and died there, we'd find more bones buried together in the same spot. What it does: Provides additional evidence against the miring theory from bone distribution patterns Source/Type: Archaeological evidence and logical deduction Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentences 4-7 by adding a third piece of evidence against swamp miring. We've had: (1) logical argument, (2) depth measurement, (3) NOW bone scattering pattern. Visualization: MIRING DEATH: Bones clustered together where animal died vs. ACTUAL FIND: Bones scattered/separated Reading Strategy Insight: This is piling on more evidence for the same point. The case against miring theory is getting stronger, not more complex. What We Know So Far: Three strikes against miring theory: mastodons were adapted + only 47 cm deep + bones scattered not clustered What We Don't Know Yet: What DID happen to this mastodon?
The researchers concluded that the bones may have gradually come loose and sunk to the bottom of the pond from the floating carcass as it decomposed.	What it says: The scientists think the mastodon died, floated on the water surface for a while, and then its bones gradually fell off the decomposing body and sank to the bottom. What it does: Provides the researchers' new theory to replace the debunked old theories Source/Type: Current researchers' conclusion based on all the evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the payoff for the entire passage. Sentences 2-8 systematically debunked two old theories, NOW Sentence 9 gives us the new explanation that fits all the evidence. Visualization: Mastodon dies (unknown cause) → Body floats on pond surface → Over time, bones detach from decomposing flesh → Individual bones sink to pond bottom → Explains scattered distribution Reading Strategy Insight: This is the "so what?" moment. All that evidence was building to this alternative explanation. The passage structure is: Old theories + Evidence against them + New theory that fits the evidence. Final Understanding: Scientists replaced old drowning/miring theories with new floating-then-sinking theory that better explains the bone evidence.

2. Passage Summary:

Author's Purpose:

To explain how scientists used evidence from a specific mastodon discovery to challenge and replace old theories about how mastodons died in wetland environments.

Summary of Passage Structure:

In this passage, the author walks us through how researchers systematically debunked old theories and developed a new explanation:

First, the author introduces the research context by explaining that scientists are studying mastodon bones found at a farm in Indiana.
Next, the author presents two old theories that scientists used to believe - that mastodons either drowned after breaking through floating vegetation or got stuck and died in swampy areas.
Then, the author systematically shows why both old theories don't work by presenting multiple types of evidence - the site was actually open water (not a bog), mastodons were adapted to wetlands, the bones show only shallow sinking, and the bone distribution pattern doesn't match what you'd expect from getting stuck.
Finally, the author reveals the new theory that researchers developed to explain what actually happened - the mastodon died and floated on the surface while its bones gradually fell off and sank to the bottom.

Main Point:

Based on physical evidence from the Indiana site, researchers have replaced old theories about mastodons drowning or getting stuck in wetlands with a new theory that mastodons died from other causes and their bones scattered when they decomposed while floating.

1. Question Analysis:

The question asks what the passage 'most strongly suggests' about mastodons in general. This is an inference question that requires us to look for information the passage provides or implies about mastodon characteristics, behaviors, or adaptations.

Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:

From our passage analysis, we identified several key insights about mastodons:

The passage mentions that mastodons were 'adapted for feeding in wetlands' (from sentence 5 analysis)
The passage states that mastodons 'frequented' wet areas (also from sentence 5)
The researchers argue that 'an animal adapted for feeding in wetlands generally should be able to avoid' getting stuck in swamps
The passage systematically debunks theories about mastodons regularly dying from wetland hazards

Prethinking:

Based on our passage analysis, the strongest suggestion about mastodons is related to their relationship with wetlands. The passage explicitly states they were 'adapted for feeding in wetlands' and that they 'frequented' wet areas. This information directly supports the idea that mastodons likely fed in wetlands. The entire argument structure depends on mastodons being wetland specialists - this is why the researchers argue they wouldn't typically get stuck in swamps.

Answer Choices Explained

likely fed in wetlands

Why It's Right:
• The passage explicitly states that mastodons were "an animal adapted for feeding in wetlands"
• The passage mentions that mastodons "frequented" wet areas, supporting their regular use of wetlands
• The entire logical argument against the miring theory depends on mastodons being wetland specialists
Key Evidence: "The wet areas that mastodons frequented may have provided abundant opportunities to become irretrievably stuck, but an animal adapted for feeding in wetlands generally should be able to avoid such a fate."

were not strong swimmers

Why It's Wrong:
• The passage never discusses mastodon swimming abilities
• The new theory suggests mastodons could float after death, but this says nothing about their swimming skills when alive
• Being adapted to wetlands doesn't imply poor swimming - many wetland animals are excellent swimmers
Common Student Mistakes:

Does the floating carcass theory mean mastodons couldn't swim?
→ No, floating after death is unrelated to swimming ability when alive
Does feeding in wetlands mean they avoided deep water?
→ Wetland feeding and swimming ability are separate skills

had little buoyancy

Why It's Wrong:
• The passage never mentions buoyancy as a mastodon characteristic
• The floating carcass theory describes what happens to dead bodies, not living animal buoyancy
• All large mammals typically have low buoyancy compared to their body weight
Common Student Mistakes:

Does the floating decomposition theory relate to living mastodon buoyancy?
→ No, this describes post-mortem decomposition gases, not living animal traits
Would low buoyancy explain why they got stuck?
→ The passage argues they didn't typically get stuck, and buoyancy isn't mentioned as a factor

often became mired in swamps

Why It's Wrong:
• This directly contradicts the passage's main argument
• The researchers specifically argue against the idea that mastodons regularly became mired
• The passage states mastodons were adapted to avoid such fates in wetlands
Common Student Mistakes:

Doesn't the passage discuss mastodons getting stuck in swamps?
→ Yes, but it argues AGAINST this being a common occurrence
Wasn't this a 'common claim' mentioned in the passage?
→ The passage presents this as an old, incorrect theory that has been debunked

tended to avoid mats of floating vegetation

Why It's Wrong:
• The passage never suggests mastodons avoided floating vegetation
• The bog theory was debunked because the site wasn't actually a bog, not because mastodons avoided such areas
• Being wetland-adapted would likely make them comfortable around various types of wetland vegetation
Common Student Mistakes:

Since the bog theory was wrong, did mastodons avoid bogs?
→ No, the theory was wrong because this specific site wasn't actually a bog
Would wetland animals naturally avoid floating vegetation mats?
→ Many wetland specialists actually use such areas for feeding and habitat

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...