Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 08:28

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 195 [1] , given: 6

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 03:04
1
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

45% (02:43) correct 55% (02:01) wrong based on 445 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so
.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 03:16
Will go with D.
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 03:40
I would go with B. B and D are very similar, and i went with B because 'D' uses the word 'most', which cant be properly inferred from the passage. 'Some' in B is better.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [6] , given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 05:41
6
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I don't even understand the passage but I would go with B and here is why.

Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.

The way the passage is worded is confusing to me. But I notice words like 'some' and 'many'. Its hard to make difinitive statements from these words.

ex. Some people like candy.

It's hard to take that statement and say 'many' or 'most' people like candy.

A and E are very difinitive so I rule them out.

C says most people and that seems very hard to prove as well.

D says that they provide 'only' which seems very hard to prove also.

That leaves me with B.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

This seems to be the most easiest to prove.
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 05:45
I picked B too.
To me, D is too extreme of an inference answer.
Confusing question.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 6

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 07:11
OA is B
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 133
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 07:21
A is too strong,

Nihit wrote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so
.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.
>> too strong.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.
> Most envts. we dont know that for sure?
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
> We dont know if they provide only noneconomic justification.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.
> not covered in the passage.
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 19:43
E for me.
The underlying theme : Majority of the environmentalists claim that non economic benefits of exploiting the features of the environment far outweigh the economic cost.

This is inference type question. For questions of these type, the answer choices are usually not explicitly stated in the paragraph. The best way to attack such question is to find the basic assumption of the given problem statement.
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
Posts: 282
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Other)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 23

Show Tags

28 Aug 2011, 20:52
Nihit wrote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so
.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.tone is somewhat different from the passage
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment. yeah seems to be a plausible choice!
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.Most- taking too far from the passage
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.Same reason as C
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.Initially I choose this but this also seems to take us too far from the passage

Any better explanation (esp. on why to eliminate E )
_________________

My GMAT Journey 540->680->730!

~ When the going gets tough, the Tough gets going!

Senior Manager
Status: mba here i come!
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 270
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1058 [0], given: 48

Show Tags

05 Sep 2011, 12:02
yogesh1984 wrote:
Nihit wrote:
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.Initially I choose this but this also seems to take us too far from the passage

Any better explanation (esp. on why to eliminate E )

"sound justification" is the problem in E. passage doesn't mention whether the non-economic justification is sound or not.
this was a nice CR question.
_________________

press +1 Kudos to appreciate posts

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 109
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 15

Show Tags

06 Sep 2011, 18:44
Nihit wrote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so
.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.

B. Rest of the choices are too extreme.
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2013
Posts: 53
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 22

Show Tags

23 Aug 2013, 07:27
I could come across the critical reasoning collection 700-800 level and I must say it was a real good compilation..but I could also find that the questions are taken mostly from the mocks..many questions were from mgmat mocks...does the compilation also include gmatprep questions as well?? If yes i guess I should use the material only for revision purpose at the end as doing it earlier would inflate my scores and the tests wont predict my actual standing...

Another questions apart from the aforementioned compilation, where from should we practice CR to grow upon confidence and fare well on the mocks!!!!

Current Student
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 939
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 134

Kudos [?]: 844 [1] , given: 546

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Jul 2014, 23:14
1
KUDOS
Nihit wrote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so
.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a non-economic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a non-economic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound non-economic justification for doing so.

Can somebody high light the source of this question?

Premise :
1) If there is nothing to exploit, then there is no economic value to derive from - claimed by some economists
2) Most economist claim that it would be wrong to destroy something even if economic cost of destroying < economic cost of NOT destroying.

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
This is a general statement and it doesn't include the "economic" factor. The economists say it is wrong for a specific case and not for every case.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a non-economic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Most economists appeal to non-economic justification (Intrinsic value) while questioning the exploiting features of the environment. - Correct

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
It is actually the opposite. Most economists actually used intrinsic value of nature to justify the non exploitation of the environment that is appealed to non - economic reasons to question the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a non-economic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Only is strong word and cannot be inferred from the above premises.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound non-economic justification for doing so.
Economists said that there is an intrinsic value of the environment. It is sound or not, it cannot be inferred

I picked up C) initially and later realized it should be B)

A good question.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal

My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Prodigy for Tepper - CMU : http://bit.ly/cmuloan-kd

Intern
Joined: 21 Apr 2014
Posts: 40
Followers: 1

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

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 17:39
A) is wrong because it is too strong of a claim. The prompt only says that "SOME environmentalists environmentalists QUESTION the prudence of exploiting features of the environment", so it would be too much to infer this

B) Since the prompt states that "Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features" it would be logical to infer that Some appeal to noneconomic justifications

C) is wrong because again it goes to far. There is nothing in the propt that would allow us to infer anything about most scientists

D) is wrong because just because many environmentalists provide noneconomic justification doesn't mean that is the ONLY justification they provide

E) is wrong because it outside the scope. There is nothing in the propt that allows us to determine what would be a sound justification or not, there is no mention of the sort.

Thus, the answer choice is B. This question is a great example of how the simplest answer that is closest to the prompt can often be the correct one.
_________________

Eliza
GMAT Tutor
bestgmatprepcourse.com

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10536
Followers: 919

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

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Dec 2015, 12:18
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.
Director
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 504
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 92

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Jul 2016, 10:47
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

SOME – favour to destroy. Basis is cost.
MANY – do not favour to destroy. Ignores the cost.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
If some people the prudence of something, would you ever say it is imprudent. If five student in your class doubt that you would get 700+ in GMAT, would you ever infer that you cannot get 700+ in GMAT? NO!

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
We can infer SOME from MANY.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Most is wrong here. You cannot make say if some or many people say something then MOST people say or not say that.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Yes it happens and is given but ONLY this happens cannot be proven. Only is wrong here. Many environmentalists give noneconomic reason but they give ONLY that reason is not something which is stated anywhere. so it cannot be inferred.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
Sound is wrong here. If MANY people give a non-economic reason then it does not mean it is a SOUND reason.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
helpful post means press '+1' for Kudos!
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2016
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

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

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Jul 2016, 20:57
+1 for B.
Here choices with most are trying to state something which cannot be proved from many and some.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2206
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 3: 560 Q43 V24
GMAT 4: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 140

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Nov 2016, 08:58
Nihit wrote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so
.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.

only B is worded in the same way as the argument is.

A - way too extreme - the fact that SOME environmentalist say so doesn't mean that it is 100% true
B - hold..looks good.
C - MOST - nope, we have SOME - some = 1-100, most is 51-100 - there is a gap between these two words.
D - MANY - since SOME can be 1 or 2, many means more - not good
E - just like A...
Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting   [#permalink] 25 Nov 2016, 08:58
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Need some advise with question 5 26 Nov 2016, 10:53
Some members.. CR question 0 29 Oct 2016, 19:02
A poem is any work of art that exploits some of the musical 13 19 Jan 2010, 06:40
Environmentalist: The complex ecosystem of the North 11 20 Oct 2008, 13:36
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game 3 15 Jun 2007, 13:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by