Is the answer A? I'll explain if the answer is right.
Folks plz try this problem:
Q. No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
No, thats not correct. See the argument wants us to find the answer, which most weakens the conclusion drawn.
Conclusions is - the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
We need to find the answer, which can show that the law is necessary and therefore should not be repealed.
Could you plz try one again?
I agree with that. i understood that in the first attempt. but i can't pin my finger on-what is wrong with the sentences.as you said A and E are out so let's analyse the rest. i'l post my views for B, C and D.
Originally Posted by VIKX View Post Folks plz try this problem:
Q. No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.: why are we concernced with the use of Yucaipa tree apart from cosmetics? all we want to show is the law is doing the job of saving Yucaipa trees. c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.: the demand will fall in other countries but will remain the same in the nation, neither decrease nor increase-hmmm this rings bells in my ears. the argument says:The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. And C shows that tree population neither decreases nor increases so that means it remains the same so the law helps to maintain it! I guess, i finally nailed it! ple say the ans is C! d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation. :unnecessary- we rn't concernced about the labor cost or how cheap/expensive is it.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
I agree with that. i understood that in the first attempt. but i can't pin my finger on-what is wrong with the sentences.as you said A and E are out so let's analyse the rest. i'l post my views for B, C and D.
Originally Posted by VIKX View Post Folks plz try this problem:
Q. No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.: why are we concernced with the use of Yucaipa tree apart from cosmetics? all we want to show is the law is doing the job of saving Yucaipa trees. c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.: the demand will fall in other countries but will remain the same in the nation, neither decrease nor increase-hmmm this rings bells in my ears. the argument says:The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. And C shows that tree population neither decreases nor increases so that means it remains the same so the law helps to maintain it! I guess, i finally nailed it! ple say the ans is C! d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation. :unnecessary- we rn't concernced about the labor cost or how cheap/expensive is it.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
Plz give your supporting explaination
I selected C as answer with the same reasoning you gave but the OA is "D". Here is the explanation of the answer given->
The correct answer is (D). Choice (D) weakens the argument by providing some evidence that in this nation it would be comparatively expensive to produce cosmetics with Yucaipa tree-bark oil and, accordingly, that the tree population in this nation might not be significantly depleted even if the law were repealed.
But I still feel "C" makes more sense then the "D".
More airplane accidents are caused by pilot error than any other single factor. The military recently stopped requiring its pilots to obtain immunization shots against chemical warfare agents. These shots are known to cause unpredictable dizzy spells which can result in pilot error. Since many military pilots also pilot commercial passenger airliners, the reason for the military's decision must have been to reduce the number of commercial airline accidents.
Which of the following, if true, provides most support for the conclusion drawn above?
a. Recently, more pilots have been volunteering for the immunization shots.
b. All commercial airline flights are piloted by two co-pilots, whereas military flights are usually piloted by only one.
c. Chemical warfare is likely to escalate in the future.
d. Military pilots are choosing to resign rather than obtain the immunization shots.
e. Recently, the number of military pilots also piloting commercial airliners has declined.
I fully disagree with the reasoning and answer. my views as follow as. and from where did you get this ques? if it's from OG/Gmat prep/Powerprep then we definitely need someone to enlighten both of us- why answer is D. if not from above source then i doubt the source.
I selected C as answer with the same reasoning you gave but the OA is "D". Here is the explanation of the answer given->
The correct answer is (D). Choice (D) weakens the argument by providing some evidence that in this nation it would be comparatively expensive to produce cosmetics with Yucaipa tree-bark oil and, accordingly, that the tree population in this nation might not be significantly depleted even if the law were repealed.
But I still feel "C" makes more sense then the "D".
D says: In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
this means that the labor cost reqd by other nations is cheap and by this nation is expensive. it shows clearly that the sentence strengths the conclusion and not weakens.
the law is concernced to show that it helps maintain the population of trees. if the labor cost goes up, how can you say that population will remain the same? or even decrease? isn't it showing that yes law is unnecessary?
More airplane accidents are caused by pilot error than any other single factor. The military recently stopped requiring its pilots to obtain immunization shots against chemical warfare agents. These shots are known to cause unpredictable dizzy spells which can result in pilot error. Since many military pilots also pilot commercial passenger airliners, the reason for the military's decision must have been to reduce the number of commercial airline accidents.
Which of the following, if true, provides most support for the conclusion drawn above?
a. Recently, more pilots have been volunteering for the immunization shots. : how many pilots volunteer is not our concern,. we rn't even concern whether the action is voluntairly or non-voluntairly. precisely-irrelevant.
b. All commercial airline flights are piloted by two co-pilots, whereas military flights are usually piloted by only one.-why are we concernced with how many pilots are in military flights? irrelevant again.
c. Chemical warfare is likely to escalate in the future.-irrelevant
d. Military pilots are choosing to resign rather than obtain the immunization shots.-irrelevant
e. Recently, the number of military pilots also piloting commercial airliners has decline- i think the only option that talks sense-says that the military pilots who ddin't take shots helped reduce the commercial airliners accidents .
I fully disagree with the reasoning and answer. my views as follow as. and from where did you get this ques? if it's from OG/Gmat prep/Powerprep then we definitely need someone to enlighten both of us- why answer is D. if not from above source then i doubt the source.
D says: In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
this means that the labor cost reqd by other nations is cheap and by this nation is expensive. it shows clearly that the sentence strengths the conclusion and not weakens.
the law is concernced to show that it helps maintain the population of trees. if the labor cost goes up, how can you say that population will remain the same? or even decrease? isn't it showing that yes law is unnecessary?
Because there is chance of chemical warfare as a precautionary measure Military Pilots( who also fly the commercial airlines) were given the shots but as those shots were causing dizziness to the pilots, military has decided to stop the immunization of pilots.
Q. Some official Web sites of regionally accredited colleges have received the highest possible rating from the Federal Department of Education. However, all official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges have received the highest possible rating from the same department.
Which of the following, if added to the statements above, would provide most support for the conclusion that all Web sites administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology have received the highest possible rating from the Federal Department of Education?
a. Only official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges are administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
b. All official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges are administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
c. Only Web sites that have not received the highest possible rating from the Federal Department of Education are administered by individuals not holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
d. All official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges are administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
e. No Web site administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology is an official Web site of a regionally accredited college.
Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably, primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?
1. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished.
2. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish.
3. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.
4. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery.
5. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.
Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably, primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?
1. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished.
2. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish.
3. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.
4. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery.
5. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.
Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably, primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?
1. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished. Ir-relavant reason for the reasoning, no question.
2. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish. Chemicals have no harmful effect on fish.
3. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.
4. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery. already rejected.
5. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas. no way related to effect of water refinery.
Is it C ?
But I don't have a sound reason.....because it can't be assumed that the predator fish would have caused the population of small fish for getting dwindled.
Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably, primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?
1. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished.
2. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish.
3. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.
4. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery.
5. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.
My take is A. Which give the reason for other reason of population decline.
Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably, primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?
1. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished.
2. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish.
3. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.
4. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery.
5. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.
Q. Some official Web sites of regionally accredited colleges have received the highest possible rating from the Federal Department of Education. However, all official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges have received the highest possible rating from the same department.
Which of the following, if added to the statements above, would provide most support for the conclusion that all Web sites administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology have received the highest possible rating from the Federal Department of Education?
a. Only official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges are administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
b. All official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges are administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
c. Only Web sites that have not received the highest possible rating from the Federal Department of Education are administered by individuals not holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
d. All official Web sites of nationally accredited colleges are administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology.
e. No Web site administered by individuals holding advanced degrees in educational technology is an official Web site of a regionally accredited college.
I would go with B. but i don't see any difference between answer B and D. it's same. is it a typo or i can't get the difference between them? 😐
Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably, primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?
1. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished.
2. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish.
3. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.
4. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery.
5. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.
1. This is tricky. However, once the water got cleaner, the number of offsprings the fishes produced should have rose. This is clearly not the case. 2. If the chemicals have a benign effect, the fish population should increase/remain stable. 3. Clearly points towards an unfavorable situation for sunfish and answers the question. 4. This is irrelevant information. 5. This rule hasn't changed and hence does not explain the change in sunfish population.