|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink]
13 Feb 2011, 15:48
Question Stats:
28% (02:15) correct
71% (01:24) wrong based on 3 sessions
Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. Not coincidentally, the earth’s ozone layer has been continuously depleted throughout the last 50 years. Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes. Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation. In addition, their gelatinous eggs lack the protection of leathery or hard shells. Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer. Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT: (A) Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes. (B) Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of nonamphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from UV-B. (C) Atmospheric ozone has been significantly depleted above all the areas of the world in which amphibian populations are declining. (D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century. (E) Amphibian populations have declined continuously for the last 50 years. I don't agree with the OE: OE: A is the correct answer. "The answer fails to shed any light -positive or negative- on the connection between the ozone depletion and the amphibian population decline. Because the argument is concerned with the damage done by UV-B radiation, the fact that UV-B is the only damaging type of radiation blocked by ozone is irrelevant". What would happen if there were other rays which are killing the amphibian populations? If other rays were the culprit, I think that the argument would be hurted in certain way. What do you think? Source:CR Powerscore
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Admitted
Affiliations: Chicago Booth
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 947
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
143
[1] , given: 123
|
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink]
13 Feb 2011, 23:22
1
This post received KUDOS
Its A Vs D. Since rest strengthen the conclusion. I will try to answer why D is not the answer. For any causal argument X->Y any alt cause will weaken the argument. D says that the alt cause does not exist and laso that the effect does not exist before the cause. If the natural habitat were not endangered before. D is OUT, Which makes A as the answer. Under pressure just don't think why answer is an answer - mark the answer and move on. Over-analysis is a trap of gmat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 195
WE 1: 4 yr IT
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
39
[2] , given: 24
|
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink]
14 Feb 2011, 02:57
2
This post received KUDOS
IMO the choice is between A and B. others obviously help strengthen the argument. If we look at B, we'll see B says other animals which are safer from UV-B rays don't have any decline. which, when paraphrased means UV-B rays are the factor behind the decline(which is another way of saying "Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation" as stated in the premise). we know "Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes." so if UV-B rays are a factor, then indirectly, the depletion of ozone layer, which allowed the UV-B rays to enter is the cause. So it is STRENGTHENING. Take A. "Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes" . if this is strengthening the argument then the opposite of this should weaken the argument. what is the opposite?? other type of radiations blocked by atmospheric ozone also cause damage. Now, what is the conclusion of the argument?? "Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer." Is this conclusion weakened in any way by the previous statement?? no. the key here is "blocked by the atmospheric ozone". even if other radiation are the cause of decline, ozone layer depletion will allow those rays to enter and will therefore become an indirect cause. Either way ozone layer depletion is the cause of decline. this does not affect the conclusion. So A is clearly irrelevant, whether it is true or false, doesn't affect the conclusion. Hence IMO A
_________________
this time, we play for keeps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Admitted
Affiliations: Chicago Booth
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 947
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
143
[0], given: 123
|
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink]
14 Feb 2011, 04:17
I agree with vinzycoolfire. B didnt caught me since its still heading south. I want a answer heading North. If someone says X is a better killer than Y - X and Y are both killers they are not saints. In any case life of the client will be endangered - still the arg is heading in one direction. Same here. Depletion of O layer is the culprit - which radiations in O layer is irrelevant hence A is OUT
Negation - that is awesome way. +1 to vinzycoolfire. The opposite of "only one" is some. Some of raditions besides X are causes of the population erosion. So what ? The arg is still on and says ozone is the real culprit. The arg is not negated when assum is. Hence it cannot be the real assumption / strengthener.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink]
14 Feb 2011, 07:35
gmat1220 wrote: Under pressure just don't think why answer is an answer - mark the answer and move on. Over-analysis is a trap of gmat. Totally agree with you. Do that during the real exam or a practice CAT. However, during your routine preparation, you have to be sure why you are choosing an option. That will increase your effectiveness. Otherwise, the chances will decide your score.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 59
Schools: INSEAD,Nanyang Business school, CBS,
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 8
|
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink]
15 Feb 2011, 02:27
IMO D
_________________
Working without expecting fruit helps in mastering the art of doing fault-free action !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 4
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink]
07 Mar 2011, 10:37
What OE says about D? Why does it strengthen?
D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Amphibian populations
[#permalink]
07 Mar 2011, 10:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|