Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 06:44 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 06:44

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Status:1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Posts: 421
Own Kudos [?]: 2976 [13]
Given Kudos: 630
Location: United States (FL)
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 2: 610 Q44 V30
GMAT 3: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 4: 590 Q35 V35
GPA: 3.45
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 134
Own Kudos [?]: 1713 [7]
Given Kudos: 886
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE:Analyst (Computer Software)
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 70
Own Kudos [?]: 438 [1]
Given Kudos: 349
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: HBS '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
Send PM
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 274 [2]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
Send PM
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
2
Kudos
(A) Environmental legislation limiting industrial pollution was much more financial
onerous on North American firms than legislation protecting marine habitats. ----- This tells us financial information. But does not give us any information on why was pollution increase greater than habitat destruction.

(B) The decreasing percentage of sea otters among the marine population had a
positive effect on the species that sea otters typically prey on. ----- Does not specify the species and how much do the species affect the habitat. This answer is the closest but I feel there are a lot of loopholes for this to be the answer. (A better explanation would be much appreciated)

(C) Most of the habitats likely to be destroyed by human activity had already been
compromised for marine life by 1970. ----- CORRECT because most of the habitat was already destroyed before. So the rate of habitat destruction is going to be less than that of pollution

(D) Habitat destruction was a more frequent target of environmental legislation than
pollution in the decade preceding 1960. ---- No information about the increase in the current decade. Trying to imply that because habitat destruction was a frequent target in the previous decade, the increase is lower in this decade.

(E) Marine life as a whole was more significantly affected by pollution than by habitat destruction. Out of scope.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT Date: 12-07-2013
GPA: 3.12
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
Hiiiii

I was confused between B & C before looking into the answer. Was convinced with C only after the explanation...
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Status:1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Posts: 421
Own Kudos [?]: 2976 [2]
Given Kudos: 630
Location: United States (FL)
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 2: 610 Q44 V30
GMAT 3: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 4: 590 Q35 V35
GPA: 3.45
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Send PM
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Official Explanation

Answer: C
When a question asks you to "account for a finding," the finding itself must be somewhat unexplained, even a paradox. In this case, we know there are two causes for the decrease in the otter population: pollution and habitat destruction. Because legislation has had more to say about pollution, it makes sense that the effects of pollution would go down, meaning that habitat destruction is the bigger problem. But the argument tells us that pollution remains the bigger problem. Choice (A) doesn't help--the cost of the legislation doesn't tell us about its effectiveness. (B) is irrelevant, as we care only about sea otters. Similarly, (E) is too general. Choice (C) is correct. If habitat destruction had almost reached its maximum by 1970, it's only reasonable that it didn't increase by a very large percentage between 1970 and 1990. (E) may sound similar, but it is less directly related. Not only does it discuss legislation (not the specific destruction of habitats), but the endpoint is 1960, not 1970, as it is in the question and in (C).

Hope this helps.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 81
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 161
GMAT 1: 600 Q43 V30
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
Send PM
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
Moreover option E is the conclusion that can be inferred from the passage, and conclusion cannot tell us anything regarding the underlying issues.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Send PM
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
I didn't choose the answer C because i thought that while we deal with percentage , we take current value as 100 and then calculate it . How does it matter what was the past value ? even if 50% of habitat was destroyed in 1970 , the current 50 % will be treated as 100 % and then the change(delta ) will be calculated .
1970 is the base of consensus has not been mentioned anywhere so if the population changes by 10% from 100 to 110 , it is in reference to current year . Until it is mentioned that 1970 has been taken as base year for % calculation.
Can someone please tell me where i went wrong ?
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17221
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: From 1970 to 1990, sea otters made up a steadily decreasing percentage [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne