Journalist: Obviously, though some animals are purely carnivorous, non

I had to re-read that "eh" in the second line. If that's intentional, what a question! Anyway, getting back to it, I took 1:20 to answer this. It's probably a good idea to recognize that this is more of a gist question than one that can be solved simply through sheer logic. There is nothing inherently wrong with some of the answer choices. You have to pick the best one. What is this journalist really getting at with all this talk? What's the point of saying all this? If, later on, some person asks you: "What was that Journalist's deal? On the podium for like 2 whole minutes?" You should reply: "Ah, basically the journalist was saying (Answer)"

Journalist: Obviously, though some animals are purely carnivorous, none would survive without plants. But eh dependence is mutual. Many plant species would never have come to be had there been no animals to pollinate, fertilize, and broadcast their seeds. Also, plants’ photosynthetic activity would deplete the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere were it not constantly being replenished by the exhalation of animals, engine fumes, and smoke from fires, many set by human beings.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the journalist’s argument?


(A) The photosynthetic activity of plants is necessary for animal life, but animal life is also necessary for the occurrence of photosynthesis in plants.
Kind of seems a bit too specific. I mean is photosynthesis really something the journalist is concerned with or is it something used to make a larger point? Keep for now.

(B) Some purely carnivorous animals would not survive without plants.
This was a good conclusion frankly. Keep for now. It's strong since the very first line brings up carnivorous animals. But the rest of the passage goes off about a broader issue, I daresay.

(C) The chemical composition of Earth and its atmosphere depends, at least to some extent, one the existence and activities of the animals that populate Earth.
No, this one is weaker than the others. I didn't even read/consider this fully. The chemical composition of Earth ---nope! This isn't what the journalist is getting at.

(D) Human activity is part of what prevents plants from depleting the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere on which plants and animals alike depends.
Too specific. Not mentioned. Can't even be used formally as a conclusion perhaps since there are no supporting premises.

(E) Just as animals are dependent on plants for their survival, plants are dependent on animals for theirs.
Nice and elegant and just feels right. This is something you might tell a friend later on about what the journalist's deal was all about. "Oh, basically just saying that animals are dependent on plants just as much as plants are on animals"

5 Verbal tips from a V48 GMAT tutor