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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Are you attending an MBA or Masters program outside in the US or Europe and wondering how to finance your studies? In this exclusive conversation, we discuss the collateral-free non-cosigner education loans...
Solve 30 high quality GMAT Focus practice questions in timed conditions. Take this GMAT practise test live with peers, analyze your GMAT study progress, and see where you stand in the GMAT student pool.
Join us in a comprehensive talk about the F1 Student Visa process with Travis Feuerbacher, former U.S. Visa Officer and licensed U.S. immigration attorney having expertise working for the U.S. Department of State
Ready to skyrocket your career with an MBA? Get ahead with our curated list of FREE courses and resources to kickstart your journey into business education!
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies, Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence, and Excel in timed test environment
Join us for an exclusive one-day event focused on mastering the GMAT and maximizing your preparation resources! Here's what you can expect: Don't miss out on this invaluable opportunity to supercharge your GMAT preparation journey.
Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2004, 13:22
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
This is a question I got wrong and where I don't totally agree with the OA. I'll post the answer after some discussion
Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare or endangered animals have died within two months of the opening of our new Animal World theme park. However, the more than one thousand other animals at the park are in healthy condition, and park management has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure their continued survival and good health.
Which of the following, if true, woudl most strengthen the claim above? A) The five animals that died succumbed to infectious diseases spread through unclean drinking water B) Most zoos and other facilities that house rare animals experience several fatalities within two months of opening C) Over $2 million was spent by the management of Animal World on health facilities for the animals at the park D) The rare or endangered animals living at Animal World were obtained through legally sanctioned conservation programs E) One of the world's most famous zoo directors was hired by Animal World as a consultant on animal health
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.
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.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2004, 13:45
I think it is B, since it the only one showing the historical nature of the new zoos, which are prone to some kind of disaster. All the others
(except A) are strengthing but what is the limit. 2 million may not be enough, why just one consultant? Here we cannot question the zoo's capability but can point to some extraneous circumstances which can prove our point.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2004, 13:49
Thats a tough on.. between E and C. I would say.
The claim is that "every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure continued health".
I'm going to choose E. C says they spent 2 million, but that number alone gives us not indication relative to a normal zoo. E.g. most zoos might spend 10 mil on health facitilities, in this case, animal world would be deficient.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2004, 20:42
(A) is a show of negligence, not what we want.
(B) does not show that the park has taken precaution. In fact, it might be all zoos are negligent !
(C) 2 million dollars spent doesn't mean precaution. It is a waste of money if no one with the professional skills is present to help with the health of the animals
(D) is out of scope
(E) is pretty goo. It shows that a professional was hired to take care of animal health
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
20 Aug 2004, 06:00
Why do we need to assume that the rare animals died of ill-health...
there could be lot of other causes -
bad maintenance, food habits, starvation...blah blah...so how can we say that hiring an professional on animal health would be strenghthening the argument...
In B, there is a generalisation....any thoughts on this Paul
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
20 Aug 2004, 06:35
My answer is B.
Quote:
B) Most zoos and other facilities that house rare animals experience several fatalities within two months of opening
The reason being that there is a different reason for the death of the rare animals.It is not because of facilities that the animals died. The reason could be that the animals found it difficult to adapt to the new enviornment and thus struggled to survive.
Only those who survived the first two months live long.
Something like the survivial of the fittest.!
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
Updated on: 20 Aug 2004, 09:27
OA is B. I picked E on this one
I see your reasoning for refuting E Bhai. However, E only says that one of the most famous consultants has been hired, it does not say anything about whether the zoo also hired other consultants. In that respect, E most properly strengthens the claim that proper precautions were taken at the zoo.
B on the other hand could be refuted because even though many fatalities happen at other zoos, what if those other zoos' size are much larger? Furthermore, I don't like taking others' example to justify our own wrongdoings/weaknesses. Furthermore, B does nothing to justify the conclusion that every reasonable precaution to ensure their continued survival and good health
Originally posted by Paul on 20 Aug 2004, 09:10.
Last edited by Paul on 20 Aug 2004, 09:27, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
20 Aug 2004, 09:19
I may have got influenzed by your opening statement in which you said that you got it wrong. I am sure I would have chosen E but I was thinking out of the box. Even then I was convinced that consultants and the 2 million qualify equally to be an answer and so changed my mind.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
20 Aug 2004, 11:26
B, my choice.
B may not be the strong contender, but the best among given choices.
B suggests, it is possible that some uncaged rare species go through a different (possibly strenuous) caged experience, which they can't bear and ultimately die. And that (the death) is not rare
E --> can't be it. doesn't prove whether the director was prudent enuf to take necessary action.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
21 Aug 2004, 10:43
Quote:
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the claim above?
It all depends on what we think the company's claim is:
If we think that the company claims that the death is not a a special case, then B is the answer.
If we think that the company claims that they have taken this seriously and have done enuf measures to overcome this in future, then E is the answer.
I personally think E is the answer, since the "claim" (and hence conclusion) is that zoo has taken new measures.
"Endagered psecied died" is just given as an a aupport argument and not as a claim.
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare
[#permalink]
22 Aug 2004, 09:31
here is why i chose B
we need to show that the reason the animals died was outside their control and i think b does that by saying look its normal for some animals to die despite efforts and then gives evidence
E i definately think is wrong. So what if they hired the worlds most famous consultant? they have to follow wht he says and not be negligent. you can hire the best consultant in making a building and still be negligent
c - who is to say $2M is adequate. while $2m is a lot for many of us here maybe they should have spent $10 m. who knows...
only b shows such activity is normal
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.
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!
gmatclubot
Re: Company spokeperson: It is true that specimens of five rare [#permalink]