|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
65
[0], given: 60
|
In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
 14 Nov 2012, 06:31
Question Stats:
27% (01:57) correct
72% (01:06) wrong based on 65 sessions
In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the United States has been cut in half. The decline is due primarily to the increasing use of pesticides in the United States, as well as to the introduction of two types of mites that weaken and kill the bees. Honeybees are the primary pollinators for a variety of important fruit crops, including oranges, apples, grapes, peaches, cranberries and watermelons. Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers. In evaluating the conclusion, which of the following questions would be LEAST useful to answer? A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee? B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand? C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees? D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations? E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination?
_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
Last edited by nelz007 on 14 Nov 2012, 09:19, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[1] , given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 08:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
nelz007 wrote: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the United States has been cut in half. The decline is due primarily to the increasing use of pesticides in the United States, as well as to the introduction of two types of mites that weaken and kill the bees. Honeybees are the primary pollinators for a variety of important fruit crops, including oranges, apples, grapes, peaches, cranberries and watermelons. Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers.
In evaluating the conclusion, which of the following questions would be LEAST useful to answer?
A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee?
B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand?
C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees?
D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations?
E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination? Conclusion is: if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers. Lets see each choice one by one. A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee? Even if the ans to this question is yes, chances are pesticides would eliminate those insects as well. note, we are evaluating this conclusion in the light of decline in bee population due to pesticides.
Therefore yes or no in this question does not matter in evaluating the argument.B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand? conclusion is that most fruits will no longer be available to customer. If the ans to this question is no that means there will be pollination and there will be fruits. if ans to this question is yes then we know that conclusion holds good. So this question helps.C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees? Yes/no to this question provides alternate method of pollination. if yes ->pollination -> fruits. if no -> no pollination -> no fruit. So this question helps.D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations? yes would mean if population continues to decline we can reverse the trend.-> continue pollination->fruits!
no would mean we can not reverse the trend -> no pollination->no fruits.E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination?[/ in this choice we are just eliminating middle man pollination of our other answer choices.. yes->fruits, no->no fruits.Hence ans A it is.
_________________
Lets Kudos!!! 
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
65
[0], given: 60
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:09
This was a very confusing question. The official answer is D.
_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[0], given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:11
nelz007 wrote: This was a very confusing question. The official answer is D. How could it be D?  what is the explanation given?
_________________
Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
65
[1] , given: 60
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:13
1
This post received
KUDOS
Vips0000 wrote: nelz007 wrote: This was a very confusing question. The official answer is D. How could it be D? what is the explanation given? here's the explanation: This is a type of weaken question that asks the test-taker to provide the question that would, when answered, either strengthen or weaken the conclusion. In this exception question, the correct answer will be the question that is not useful in evaluating the conclusion. Choice D is the correct answer because it is the one that is not directly focused on the conclusion, which is the prediction that most fruits will be unavailable in the absence of the honeybees. Choice D poses a very important question about a possible way to reverse the decline in the honeybee population, but the answer to this question would neither strengthen nor weaken the conclusion. Choices A and C ask about potential alternative ways to pollinate the fruit, while Choice E presents the possibility that pollination could be bypassed through genetic engineering. Choice B asks about other fruit-producing regions that might be used as alternative sources of fruit for consumers.
_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1338
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 69
Kudos [?]:
328
[1] , given: 53
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:17
1
This post received
KUDOS
nelz007 wrote: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the United States has been cut in half. The decline is due primarily to the increasing use of pesticides in the United States, as well as to the introduction of two types of mites that weaken and kill the bees. Honeybees are the primary pollinators for a variety of important fruit crops, including oranges, apples, grapes, peaches, cranberries and watermelons. Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers.
In evaluating the conclusion, which of the following questions would be LEAST useful to answer?
A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee?
B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand?
C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees?
D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations?
E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination? Not convinced with the OA given. I feel the answer must be B. A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee? YES Then fruits can be easily pollinated despite the decline in the number of honeybees. NO The decline will continue and in futute most of the fruits will be unavailable. B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand? We are concerned with the fruits in America. Who cares about Chile and New Zealand. C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees? YES If humans can pollinate the fruits, then fruits can be pollinated and in such a case conclusion weakens. NO If humans also are unable to pollinate, then surely the fruits will decline. Strengthens D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations? YES Then decline can be eliminated by reducing the use of pesticides. Weakens the argument NO So reduction of pesticide usage is also not going to help the fruits anyways. Strengthens the argument. E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination? YES If we can genetically engineer the fruit producing plants, then one may never feel short of fruits in America. Weakens the argument. NO Strengthens the argument. Are you sure about the OA?
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
65
[0], given: 60
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:19
I just pasted the official explanation that was provided before your post..
_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1338
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 69
Kudos [?]:
328
[0], given: 53
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[0], given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:28
nelz007 wrote: Vips0000 wrote: nelz007 wrote: This was a very confusing question. The official answer is D. How could it be D? what is the explanation given? here's the explanation: This is a type of weaken question that asks the test-taker to provide the question that would, when answered, either strengthen or weaken the conclusion. In this exception question, the correct answer will be the question that is not useful in evaluating the conclusion. Choice D is the correct answer because it is the one that is not directly focused on the conclusion, which is the prediction that most fruits will be unavailable in the absence of the honeybees. Choice D poses a very important question about a possible way to reverse the decline in the honeybee population, but the answer to this question would neither strengthen nor weaken the conclusion. Choices A and C ask about potential alternative ways to pollinate the fruit, while Choice E presents the possibility that pollination could be bypassed through genetic engineering. Choice B asks about other fruit-producing regions that might be used as alternative sources of fruit for consumers. I doubt if the OE is correct. True, option A looks for potential alternatives for pollination. But it looks for "insect pollination". But even if we find insect X, Y or Z - we still need to evaluate and find out if those insects would not be affected because of pesticides. This definitely can not help in evaluating the argument. As far as D is concerned - it is not talking about stopping the trend - but it talks about reversal of trend. What it means is if we reduce pesticide bee population will increase -> which shows pollination would happen again -> consumer can get fruits. So it weakens argument when answered in affirmative. The OE is definitely not correct.
_________________
Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 32
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:39
Vips0000 wrote:
True, option A looks for potential alternatives for pollination. But it looks for "insect pollination". But even if we find insect X, Y or Z - we still need to evaluate and find out if those insects would not be affected because of pesticides. This definitely can not help in evaluating the argument.
As far as D is concerned - it is not talking about stopping the trend - but it talks about reversal of trend. What it means is if we reduce pesticide bee population will increase -> which shows pollination would happen again -> consumer can get fruits. So it weakens argument when answered in affirmative.
The OE is definitely not correct.
I guess D is correct answer because the conclusion states "Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers." That is -> the conclusion is contingent on the basis only when "honey bee population continues this drastic decline". Per D, if we can reverse or not reverse the trend is irrelevant to issue of getting fruits (given the bees continue to decline) In other words, we have evaluate all the answer choice considering what will happen if the trend continues. Makes sense? Cheers cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1338
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 69
Kudos [?]:
328
[0], given: 53
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:48
Jp27 wrote: Vips0000 wrote:
True, option A looks for potential alternatives for pollination. But it looks for "insect pollination". But even if we find insect X, Y or Z - we still need to evaluate and find out if those insects would not be affected because of pesticides. This definitely can not help in evaluating the argument.
As far as D is concerned - it is not talking about stopping the trend - but it talks about reversal of trend. What it means is if we reduce pesticide bee population will increase -> which shows pollination would happen again -> consumer can get fruits. So it weakens argument when answered in affirmative.
The OE is definitely not correct.
I guess D is correct answer because the conclusion states "Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers." That is -> the conclusion is contingent on the basis only when "honey bee population continues this drastic decline". Per D, if we can reverse or not reverse the trend is irrelevant to issue of getting fruits (given the bees continue to decline) In other words, we have evaluate all the answer choice considering what will happen if the trend continues. Makes sense? Cheers cheers But won't reversing the trend halt the continuation of the decline in the number of fruits available to consumers in America, given the fact that honeybees are the pollinators. Am I missing something?
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[0], given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:52
Jp27 wrote: Vips0000 wrote:
True, option A looks for potential alternatives for pollination. But it looks for "insect pollination". But even if we find insect X, Y or Z - we still need to evaluate and find out if those insects would not be affected because of pesticides. This definitely can not help in evaluating the argument.
As far as D is concerned - it is not talking about stopping the trend - but it talks about reversal of trend. What it means is if we reduce pesticide bee population will increase -> which shows pollination would happen again -> consumer can get fruits. So it weakens argument when answered in affirmative.
The OE is definitely not correct.
I guess D is correct answer because the conclusion states "Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers." That is -> the conclusion is contingent on the basis only when "honey bee population continues this drastic decline". Per D, if we can reverse or not reverse the trend is irrelevant to issue of getting fruits (given the bees continue to decline) In other words, we have evaluate all the answer choice considering what will happen if the trend continues. Makes sense? Cheers cheers Not really! Yes conclusion is - "if bee population continues to decline-> most fruits will no longer be available to consumers" most basic logical meaning of this? if population doesnt decline (or increase -reversing the trend!) -> fruits may be available to consumers. Which is option D. So it matters! I hope your explanation is not driven from answer?
_________________
Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 32
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 09:59
Marcab wrote: Jp27 wrote: Vips0000 wrote:
True, option A looks for potential alternatives for pollination. But it looks for "insect pollination". But even if we find insect X, Y or Z - we still need to evaluate and find out if those insects would not be affected because of pesticides. This definitely can not help in evaluating the argument.
As far as D is concerned - it is not talking about stopping the trend - but it talks about reversal of trend. What it means is if we reduce pesticide bee population will increase -> which shows pollination would happen again -> consumer can get fruits. So it weakens argument when answered in affirmative.
The OE is definitely not correct.
I guess D is correct answer because the conclusion states "Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers." That is -> the conclusion is contingent on the basis only when "honey bee population continues this drastic decline". Per D, if we can reverse or not reverse the trend is irrelevant to issue of getting fruits (given the bees continue to decline) In other words, we have evaluate all the answer choice considering what will happen if the trend continues. Makes sense? Cheers cheers But won't reversing the trend halt the continuation of the decline in the number of fruits available to consumers in America, given the fact that honeybees are the pollinators. Am I missing something? But you are answering the wrong question! Question here is Will american get fruits, despite the decline of bees? See how the other answer choices work. A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee? if Other insect can pollinate then we will get fruits, let the bees dieB Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand? we will get fruits from other counties, who cares abt the bees! C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees? humans can hand-pollinate so we can get fruits, we dont need bees anymore to pollinateE Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination? fruit no longer need pollination, no use of bees. See the trend sir?
When I say "If i go the party, I will get drunk"
In evaluating "will I get drunk?, There is no point question whether I will go to the party! Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 32
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 10:07
Vips0000 wrote: Jp27 wrote: Vips0000 wrote:
True, option A looks for potential alternatives for pollination. But it looks for "insect pollination". But even if we find insect X, Y or Z - we still need to evaluate and find out if those insects would not be affected because of pesticides. This definitely can not help in evaluating the argument.
As far as D is concerned - it is not talking about stopping the trend - but it talks about reversal of trend. What it means is if we reduce pesticide bee population will increase -> which shows pollination would happen again -> consumer can get fruits. So it weakens argument when answered in affirmative.
The OE is definitely not correct.
I guess D is correct answer because the conclusion states "Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers." That is -> the conclusion is contingent on the basis only when "honey bee population continues this drastic decline". Per D, if we can reverse or not reverse the trend is irrelevant to issue of getting fruits (given the bees continue to decline) In other words, we have evaluate all the answer choice considering what will happen if the trend continues. Makes sense? Cheers cheers Not really! Yes conclusion is - "if bee population continues to decline-> most fruits will no longer be available to consumers"most basic logical meaning of this? if population doesnt decline (or increase -reversing the trend!) -> fruits may be available to consumers.Which is option D. So it matters! I hope your explanation is not driven from answer? This (bolded) is wrong logic If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore. From this you conclude -> If Im NOT in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm NOT in Singapore - Clearly wrong. I could be at some other place in Singapore such as Ang Mo Kio Correct Inference is If im NOT in Singapore then I'm Definitely NOT in Pasir Ris New Town -> this is the correct inference. Now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[0], given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 10:25
Jp27 wrote:
This (bolded) is wrong logic
If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore.
From this you conclude ->
If Im NOT in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm NOT in Singapore -
Clearly wrong. I could be at some other place in Singapore such as Ang Mo Kio
Correct Inference is
If im NOT in Singapore then I'm Definitely NOT in Pasir Ris New Town -> this is the correct inference.
Now?
Sorry dude.. but these examples are like comparing apples to oranges. if bee population continues to decline-> most fruits will no longer be available to consumers This is cause and its effect While this one is not -> If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore. It is just logical deduction. It will be negated as : If i'm not in singapore then I'm not in pasir ris new town. I'll give u one more example - Cause and effect: If it rains, I'll get wet If it doesnt rain - I'll not get wet! Logical deduction- Mumbai is in india. I'm in Mumbai -> then I'm in india In this case negation can not happen as u did, It can be done as -> If i'm not in india -> then i'm not in mumbai.
_________________
Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 32
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 10:36
Vips0000 wrote: Jp27 wrote:
This (bolded) is wrong logic
If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore.
From this you conclude ->
If Im NOT in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm NOT in Singapore -
Clearly wrong. I could be at some other place in Singapore such as Ang Mo Kio
Correct Inference is
If im NOT in Singapore then I'm Definitely NOT in Pasir Ris New Town -> this is the correct inference.
Now?
Sorry dude.. but these examples are like comparing apples to oranges. if bee population continues to decline-> most fruits will no longer be available to consumers This is cause and its effect While this one is not -> If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore. It is just logical deduction. It will be negated as : If i'm not in singapore then I'm not in pasir ris new town. I'll give u one more example - Cause and effect:
If it rains, I'll get wet
If it doesnt rain - I'll not get wet!
Logical deduction- Mumbai is in india. I'm in Mumbai -> then I'm in india In this case negation can not happen as u did, It can be done as -> If i'm not in india -> then i'm not in mumbai. Vips0000 wrote: Cause and effect:
If it rains, I'll get wet
If it doesnt rain - I'll not get wet!
Then IT'S ALWAYS CONDITIONAL NOT CAUSALITY. you can still wet when someone pours water on you!If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore.
If im NOT in Singapore then I'm Definitely NOT in Pasir Ris New Town
Mumbai is in india.
If i'm not in india -> then i'm not in mumbai.I don't see any difference between two. but you claim otherwise.  Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1338
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 69
Kudos [?]:
328
[0], given: 53
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 10:41
JP.. I hope you are answering D in the right manner. D says : Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations? You will answer in either yes or no, so as to get the contrasting solutions. If the answer is yes, then reducing the use of pesticides in US reverses the decline in honeybee population. RESULT- There will not be any further decline in honeybee population. Hence there will not be any decline in the population of major pollinators of fruits and hence fruits can be made avaliable to the consumers in US. Acts as a weakener. If the answer is no, then reducing the use of pesticides in US will not reverse the decline in honeybee population. RESULT:- The decline will continue and hence consumers will not be getting fruits. Acts as a strengthener. Now this makes sense
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[0], given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 10:49
Jp27 wrote: If I'm in Pasir Ris New Town then I'm in Singapore.
If im NOT in Singapore then I'm Definitely NOT in Pasir Ris New Town
Mumbai is in india.
If i'm not in india -> then i'm not in mumbai.I don't see any difference between two. but you claim otherwise. Cheers Difference is in these statements: - If statement is: Mumbai is in india. Logical deduction-> If i'm in mubai ->then i'm in india Correct Negation If i'm not in india -> then i'm not in mumbai. Incorrect Negation If i'm not in mumbai-> then i'm not in india Having explained that - I think both of us are not going to be convinced. I rest my case 
_________________
Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 591
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
230
[0], given: 23
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 10:50
Hey marcab, You too just proved D matters in evaluating the argument. Question asks for "least" case. JP?
_________________
Lets Kudos!!!
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
Last edited by Vips0000 on 14 Nov 2012, 11:20, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1797
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
653
[0], given: 479
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the [#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 11:16
Vips0000 wrote: nelz007 wrote: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the United States has been cut in half. The decline is due primarily to the increasing use of pesticides in the United States, as well as to the introduction of two types of mites that weaken and kill the bees. Honeybees are the primary pollinators for a variety of important fruit crops, including oranges, apples, grapes, peaches, cranberries and watermelons. Therefore, if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers.
In evaluating the conclusion, which of the following questions would be LEAST useful to answer?
A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee?
B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand?
C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees?
D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations?
E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination? Conclusion is: if the honey bee population continues this drastic decline, then most fruits will no longer be available to consumers. Lets see each choice one by one. A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee? Even if the ans to this question is yes, chances are pesticides would eliminate those insects as well. note, we are evaluating this conclusion in the light of decline in bee population due to pesticides.
Therefore yes or no in this question does not matter in evaluating the argument.B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions, like Chile and New Zealand? conclusion is that most fruits will no longer be available to customer. If the ans to this question is no that means there will be pollination and there will be fruits. if ans to this question is yes then we know that conclusion holds good. So this question helps.C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees? Yes/no to this question provides alternate method of pollination. if yes ->pollination -> fruits. if no -> no pollination -> no fruit. So this question helps.D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations? yes would mean if population continues to decline we can reverse the trend.-> continue pollination->fruits!
no would mean we can not reverse the trend -> no pollination->no fruits.E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination?[/ in this choice we are just eliminating middle man pollination of our other answer choices.. yes->fruits, no->no fruits.Hence ans A it is. No the answer here is D. You are concerned ONLY of pollination or something related directly to it The least is something that talks about others stuff. For the argument at end: pesticide is the LEAST for evaluating the argument because is not the main point Quote: In evaluating the conclusion, which of the following questions would be LEAST useful to answer?
A Are there other insect pollinators that could pollinate these fruit crops instead of the honeybee?
B Are honeybee populations declining in other important fruit-producing regions (the pollination is implied), like Chile and New Zealand?
C Is it feasible for humans to hand-pollinate the fruits that have been pollinated by bees?
D Will reducing the use of pesticides in the United States reverse the decline in honeybee populations?
E Is it possible to genetically engineer fruit-producing plants so that they no longer require pollination?
_________________
KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: In the past 50 years, the population of honeybees in the
[#permalink]
14 Nov 2012, 11:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
