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

It is currently 20 Aug 2014, 10:43

Flash Sale:

The Economist GMAT Tutor - 15% Off All Courses


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

Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 16 May 2010, 03:58
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

71% (02:25) correct 29% (01:07) wrong based on 98 sessions
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 16 May 2010, 04:06
IMO E.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 298
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 16 May 2010, 06:22
noboru wrote:
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.>>> Out of scope >>> No information about no. of species >>> Not discussed
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.>>> Out of scope >>> Not discussed
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed. >>> Out of scope >>> Not discussed
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.



Let's go through the argument.

Species X (approaching extinction) is present at both A and B >>> No need to save X on A (As we have X on B also)>>> New Information : X is only on A >>> Oops..!! Save the X

IMO C complies with the argument.

E is also a contender, but IMO do not follow the sequence of the argument.. Also "we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island" supports the option C

OA plz.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 909
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 18

GMAT Tests User
Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 16 May 2010, 12:12
E for me too.
C >> The use of an extreme sentiment by the phrase 'imposes NO obligation' makes this option not so good.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 175
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User
Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 16 May 2010, 15:11
only C and E are contenders
C uses extreme language , naturalist did not say that the animal impose "NO" obligation,
hence it should be E.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 250
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 17 May 2010, 06:35
I think C is better than E.
The argument is made of extreme language:"even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators." The conclusion is about extinction, and not about care and attention.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 17 May 2010, 06:44
OA plz
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 27
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 17 May 2010, 08:13
E is the answer
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1563
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 6

Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 18 May 2010, 08:11
I think I am the odd person out....but i chose (A) which is not a very contender either....any thoughts are welcome.

the reason I did not pick (C) or (E) is because

A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.

(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation. - the premise does not say anywhere that tuatara's extinction is a global extinction

(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction - this option says that species ought to be given more care and attention but does that (more care and attention) mean that human beings can kill many of tutara's unendangered natural predators
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 250
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 18 May 2010, 09:40
A goes out for me when it says "to maximize". The argument is not concerned with maximizing any population, just preserving those on the brink of extinction.
E is definitely a contender. Two thorns for me were "care and attention" and "more vulnerable to extinction". These is little bit outside the scope.

C. Yes. Even though global extinction seemed odd to me too. But if the population is limited to only one region, global does not mean much. Moreover, the species were thought of similar to other more common species. In that case, the global region gets bigger.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 18 May 2010, 11:29
IMO its C

option E explains just one part of the argument that local species have to be given more attention that other species. But option C emphasises the point that once a certain species is getting extict globally it should be given more attention than a species that is getting extinct locally. Thus, option C covers the entire argument and not just a part of it.

If E was true then the argument wouldnt have had the part where initially the extinction was ignored and later it was considered seriously. They could have just lived with the argument that the tuatara being a animal in south new zeland has to be prevented since it occupies just a small territory.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 100
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 19 May 2010, 10:39
i go for C
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 250
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: naturalist [#permalink] New post 19 May 2010, 11:18
OA is C (LSAT 1000 CR - SECTION III Q 21)
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-25-2012
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 41 [1] , given: 62

Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 19 Sep 2012, 06:51
1
This post received
KUDOS
IMO C
because the argument says Tuatara reptiles were supposed to be approaching extinction on the South Island, but were not endangered on North Island, naturalist felt no need to protect them.But, when he got to know that the ones approaching extinction are a distinct species, the naturalist advised that the south island species should be protected at all cost even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.

Option C states exactly the same stuff and thus justifies naturalists’ argument...
_________________

if my post helped you, let me know by pressing Kudos...

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 66
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
GMAT 1: Q V0
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 14

GMAT Tests User
Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 19 Sep 2012, 09:58
For C, who gets to define what global extinction is vs local extinction? The argument is not concerned about that. The author assumed the species were the same as the North island and hence did not require protection, but when it was discovered that they are not the same efforts were made to protect it.

This is what E states and should be the ans. also C is extreme.

Another thing, the question reads "Which one of the following principles". E sounds like a principle, C sounds more like a statement, not sure if I am reading in to it too much
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 16

Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 19 Sep 2012, 12:13
noboru wrote:
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.


Is anybody tracking the questions and its respective answers?? It highly critical to know what the answer is!! The answer is C OR E??
Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 269

CAT Tests
Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2012, 00:06
noboru wrote:
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.


+1 C

C has been rejected by many for being extreme. Please look at the premise carefully, even the premise have used extreme language "But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was NO NEED to protect them"
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

Expert Post
4 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 2025
Followers: 486

Kudos [?]: 1980 [4] , given: 29

Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2012, 09:07
4
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
noboru wrote:
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.

I am responding to a pm from getgyan. Does anyone know the source of this question?

Here is my analysis:
Sentence #1 --- tuatara on south island dying
Sentence #2 --- if they're all one species, the same as the north island ones, then saving the south island tuatara is not important
Sentence #3 --- new research: south island tuatara are their own species
Sentence #4 --- since they are unique species, saving the south island tuatara is important

Very interesting --- with the change in species classification, saving the south island tuatara went from unimportant to important. That is key for this argument.

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.

First of all, does the phrase "number of living things on Earth" refer to number of species or number of individual living entities? Biologist do try to save species that are going extinct, but I don't think anyone is trying to maximize the total number of individual living things. That's crazy. I believe scientist don't even know the total number of species on earth: they can estimate it, but the value of that number is somewhat unrelated to their main task. Savings species is not a numbers game: biologists regard each species as something valuable in and of itself: no one has the idea that, somewhere out there, we are keeping notches for each species on Earth. More to the point, if we were trying to maximize number of living things, then we would be trying to save the south island tuatara, regardless of their species classification: this in no way explains the huge change in prioritization that appears in the argument. This is not correct.

(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
First of all, this is about an individual animal, not a species. More importantly, if this were true, then there would have been this obligation to save them in the first sentence, even when we thought the north and south islands tuataras were all the same species. This also doesn't explain at all how the deaths of the south island tuatara went from unimportant to important. This is not correct.

(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
This is interesting. Local extinction --- there are tuataras everywhere, and only those on the south island are dying --- no obligation = it is not important to save them. But, global extinction --- the south island tuataras are the only example in the world of that particular species ----- obligation = it is important to save them. This very cogently follows and explains the shift in the argument. This is a promising choice.

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
This is a distractor. The south island tuataras are dying because of their natural predators. The argument says zilch about human activity having an impact on the south island tuataras. Yes, it is true that human activity often is a culprit in species extinction, so that's a common assumption to make. Nevertheless, it's not mentioned at all in this particular passage, so there's no support for this answer. This is incorrect.

(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.
A wild claim, totally unsupported by the passage. All over the world, there are species that happen to exist "in only one circumscribed geographical region" --- they are not all teetering on the verge of extinction. Every species that is found "in only one circumscribed geographical region" --- we are easily talking about millions of plants, animals, bacteria, protists, etc. etc. We can't make a sweeping generalization about all of them, especially one so extreme as saying they are all "vulnerable to extinction." Tell that to the specialized bacterial species that are found only in the Ganges River and that absolutely thrive there! This answer choice a completely over-the-top claim. This is incorrect.

Thus, we can easily eliminate four answers, and we are left with only one. (C) makes a distinction that precisely mirrors the distinction made in the argument, so it powerfully supports it. (C) is the OA.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

1 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 111 [1] , given: 269

CAT Tests
Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2012, 19:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
mikemcgarry wrote:
noboru wrote:
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, has been approaching extinction on the South Island. But since South Island tuatara were thought to be of the same species as North Island tuatara there was no need to protect them. But new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species, found only in that location. Because it is now known that if the South Island tuatara are lost an entire species will thereby be lost, human beings are now obliged to prevent their extinction, even if it means killing many of their unendangered natural predators.
Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.
(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.

I am responding to a pm from getgyan. Does anyone know the source of this question?

Here is my analysis:
Sentence #1 --- tuatara on south island dying
Sentence #2 --- if they're all one species, the same as the north island ones, then saving the south island tuatara is not important
Sentence #3 --- new research: south island tuatara are their own species
Sentence #4 --- since they are unique species, saving the south island tuatara is important

Very interesting --- with the change in species classification, saving the south island tuatara went from unimportant to important. That is key for this argument.

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?
(A) In order to maximize the number of living things on Earth, steps should be taken to preserve all local populations of animals.

First of all, does the phrase "number of living things on Earth" refer to number of species or number of individual living entities? Biologist do try to save species that are going extinct, but I don't think anyone is trying to maximize the total number of individual living things. That's crazy. I believe scientist don't even know the total number of species on earth: they can estimate it, but the value of that number is somewhat unrelated to their main task. Savings species is not a numbers game: biologists regard each species as something valuable in and of itself: no one has the idea that, somewhere out there, we are keeping notches for each species on Earth. More to the point, if we were trying to maximize number of living things, then we would be trying to save the south island tuatara, regardless of their species classification: this in no way explains the huge change in prioritization that appears in the argument. This is not correct.

(B) When an animal is in danger of dying, there is an obligation to help save its life, if doing so would not interfere with the health or well-being of other animals or people.
First of all, this is about an individual animal, not a species. More importantly, if this were true, then there would have been this obligation to save them in the first sentence, even when we thought the north and south islands tuataras were all the same species. This also doesn't explain at all how the deaths of the south island tuatara went from unimportant to important. This is not correct.

(C) The threat of local extinction imposes no obligation to try to prevent that extinction, whereas the threat of global extinction does impose such an obligation.
This is interesting. Local extinction --- there are tuataras everywhere, and only those on the south island are dying --- no obligation = it is not important to save them. But, global extinction --- the south island tuataras are the only example in the world of that particular species ----- obligation = it is important to save them. This very cogently follows and explains the shift in the argument. This is a promising choice.

(D) Human activities that either intentionally or unintentionally threaten the survival of an animal species ought to be curtailed.
This is a distractor. The south island tuataras are dying because of their natural predators. The argument says zilch about human activity having an impact on the south island tuataras. Yes, it is true that human activity often is a culprit in species extinction, so that's a common assumption to make. Nevertheless, it's not mentioned at all in this particular passage, so there's no support for this answer. This is incorrect.

(E) Species that are found in only one circumscribed geographical region ought to be given more care and attention than are other species because they are more vulnerable to extinction.
A wild claim, totally unsupported by the passage. All over the world, there are species that happen to exist "in only one circumscribed geographical region" --- they are not all teetering on the verge of extinction. Every species that is found "in only one circumscribed geographical region" --- we are easily talking about millions of plants, animals, bacteria, protists, etc. etc. We can't make a sweeping generalization about all of them, especially one so extreme as saying they are all "vulnerable to extinction." Tell that to the specialized bacterial species that are found only in the Ganges River and that absolutely thrive there! This answer choice a completely over-the-top claim. This is incorrect.

Thus, we can easily eliminate four answers, and we are left with only one. (C) makes a distinction that precisely mirrors the distinction made in the argument, so it powerfully supports it. (C) is the OA.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)



Thanks Mike :)

Someone above has mentioned the source as "LSAT 1000 CR - SECTION III Q 21"
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

Re: Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a   [#permalink] 20 Sep 2012, 19:31
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Known today by a name they would not have eybrj2 3 14 May 2012, 12:15
It is known that when neurons activate, we say that they ykaiim 10 13 Apr 2010, 08:31
CR Naturalist Vavali 4 24 Mar 2008, 14:49
For decades Surgeon Generals have warned that smoking ngobaotrung 16 12 Jun 2005, 23:22
Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a WinWinMBA 10 11 May 2005, 14:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a

  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®.