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

It is currently 28 Nov 2014, 16:00

Today:

Black Friday - Best GMAT Deals of the Year


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

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 464
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [1] , given: 6

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink] New post 07 May 2008, 03:04
1
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (03:05) correct 52% (01:59) wrong based on 138 sessions
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

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

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 07 May 2008, 03:16
Will go with D.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1593
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 2

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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.
4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 107 [4] , given: 0

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 07 May 2008, 05:41
4
This post received
KUDOS
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
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1466
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 116 [0], given: 0

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 07 May 2008, 05:45
I picked B too.
To me, D is too extreme of an inference answer.
Confusing question.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 464
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 6

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 07 May 2008, 07:11
OA is B
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 133
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

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

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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
Senior Manager
User avatar
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: 6

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 23

Reviews Badge
Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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 :idea: )
_________________

My GMAT Journey 540->680->730!


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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: mba here i come!
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 271
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V37
GMAT 2: Q V
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 48

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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 :idea: )


"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
Download Valuable Collection of Percentage Questions (PS/DS)

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

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 15

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 22 May 2013
Posts: 53
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 1

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

Re: Critical Reasoning [#permalink] New post 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!!!!

thanks in advance!!!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 494
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.3
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 367

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2014, 23:14
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
Never Give Up !!!

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful
Linkedin Handle : https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=116231592

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2014
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

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

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

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting   [#permalink] 13 Oct 2014, 17:39
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Environmentalists MSDHONI 3 07 May 2011, 17:57
A poem is any work of art that exploits some of the musical joemama142000 13 19 Jan 2010, 06:40
Environmentalists computer-bot 5 17 Sep 2007, 19:41
Many environmentalists, and some economists, say that free pi10t 8 03 Sep 2007, 02:02
environmentalists praveen_rao7 4 05 Mar 2005, 20:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting

  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®.