Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 00:09

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2004, 19:33
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (01:35) wrong based on 1 sessions
11. Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose., releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official's argument?

(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2004, 20:33
I stand by C because if young trees absorb only half the amount that old trees do, then the amount released by those old trees could not be totally absorbed by younger trees thus resulting in an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 427
Location: Aus
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2004, 20:35
I thought containing CO2 is different from absorbing.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2004, 20:42
But if it can only contain less than half the old tree's amount of CO2, then even though it absorbs CO2, it will not be able to absorb the amount released by the old trees...
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2004, 22:00
I answer is B. I didnt like any of the answers very much. I ended up choosing A because of the phrase "which of the following if true"

I guess the B says the old trees are usless because most of the organic material is unsuable as lumbar. ( what an assumption ) The testmakers also need to know that trees are used for making paper and not just as lumbar. In that case B falls apart. The organic material might as well serve as wood pulp for making paper. The argument just uses word manufacture. It could mean anything.

Your comments will be appreciated.

Looks like stoolfi, praetorian123, dj are sleeping. stoolfi might avoid me because I press for explainations.
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 781

Re: CR - Logging Industry [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2004, 23:24
anandnk wrote:
11. Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose., releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official's argument?

(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests.


B is best...if the unused lumber is going to decompose anyway..whats the point of cutting the old trees in the first place?

A is out of scope
C supports the argument...if less Carbon is contained in young trees, it supports the cutting of old trees to be replaced by young trees.
D...supports the argument
E..doesnt matter if it takes a year or ten years...its out of scope
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 Jan 2004, 06:08
It is not unusable lumber. It is unusable as lumbar. I think there is a big difference between these two sentences.
  [#permalink] 05 Jan 2004, 06:08
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth sondenso 6 21 May 2009, 18:47
Although improved efficiency in converting harvested trees winskc 20 15 Oct 2006, 19:02
Altough improved efficiency in converting harvested trees jerrywu 10 05 Sep 2006, 06:22
Although improved efficiency in converting harvested trees jzchina 4 07 May 2006, 21:10
Although improved efficiency in converting harvested trees IWT801 7 08 Dec 2005, 17:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.