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

 It is currently 24 May 2015, 13:31

### 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 species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp

Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Status: D-Day is on February 10th. and I am not stressed
Affiliations: American Management association, American Association of financial accountants
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 277
Location: Kuwait
Schools: Columbia university
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 52

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  23 Nov 2011, 14:13
B straight
_________________

Sky is the limit

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 89
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 15

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  23 Nov 2011, 17:03
It should be B.

B states that restriction has been irrelevant in the recent years. Therefore, dropping the restriction will not make a difference.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 314
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 1

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  23 Nov 2011, 20:56
well the conclusion here is that ...... % of the more number of geese to be hunted is to be raised.

so, the counter should be something like 'no restriction in hunting but population still rising'. I think B come pretty much close to this.

' It has been many years since the restriction lead to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date'

+1 for B.
Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 3

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  01 Dec 2011, 21:22
+1 b
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 819
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 56

Kudos [?]: 297 [0], given: 43

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  02 Dec 2011, 19:44
Thanks fluke for explanation. Nice question.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Posts: 191
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: Q V
GPA: 3.7
WE: Account Management (Consumer Products)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 4

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  10 Dec 2011, 12:57
At first I thought it was D as well because if the geese move to another location they will still cause other species to diminish. However this answer makes a condition that if the geese population grows.

Answer B says that hunters usually do not meet the threshold of decreasing the population by 5% before the end of the hunting season. So if the restriction is uplifted hunters will still not be able to meet that threshold.
_________________

DETERMINED TO BREAK 700!!!

Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 568
Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 16

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  11 Dec 2011, 21:00
I voted for D,

But can anyone please share the OA?
_________________

Intern
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 4

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  06 Sep 2012, 01:44
1
KUDOS
I am not so convinced by the phrase "hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date". Do you mean that NOT hunting til the last scheduled day will secure that the geese hunted does not reach limit? What about the case that they hunt so fast that reach the limit and they have to stop hunting before the scheduled day?
I am so confused with this question. Help me please!
Intern
Joined: 27 Sep 2012
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  07 Oct 2012, 16:36
It is not D because the statement does not say that these new grounds are not in the South. If the grounds they are recolonizing are all located in the South, then D has no merit. Even if the grounds were in other regions, the hunters will still be allowed to kill more birds, thus impacting over species.

B - States that the hunters never reach the seasonal hunting limit. So removing the limit will have no impact.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 12

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  07 Oct 2012, 21:45
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

The argument is suggesting to increase the allowable hunting percentage of SG so that other species can also flourish.

To weaken this we must prove that even if we increase the percent to lets say 10% it will not help the cause.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. // If anything this is strengthening the argument by giving us a reason of not to increase the hunting percentage.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. // No Affect as the duration when we reach 5 % of the SG population is immaterial.
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. // this actually strengthen the argument saying that the population of SG has actually increased.
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.// Correct answer. The argument states that hunting happens in the southern region so even if we increase the hunting percentage it will not affect the overall goal as SG has moved to safer heavens
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. // Doesn't matter if the goose have other predators or Not.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5539
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1370

Kudos [?]: 6969 [2] , given: 178

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  07 Oct 2012, 22:02
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
tapdoanhp wrote:
I am not so convinced by the phrase "hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date". Do you mean that NOT hunting til the last scheduled day will secure that the geese hunted does not reach limit? What about the case that they hunt so fast that reach the limit and they have to stop hunting before the scheduled day?
I am so confused with this question. Help me please!

It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Senior Manager Joined: 21 Jan 2010 Posts: 348 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 12 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 07 Oct 2012, 22:19 Karishma, Lets say the hunting season is from Jan to June and for many years the hunters reach the 5% goal in april. How does this weaken the argument that If we drop the restriction altogether than it will help other species. In D , it is stated that they have moved on to a different location so dropping the restriction will have no affect. Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5539 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1370 Kudos [?]: 6969 [4] , given: 178 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 07 Oct 2012, 22:34 4 This post received KUDOS Expert's post vdadwal wrote: Karishma, Lets say the hunting season is from Jan to June and for many years the hunters reach the 5% goal in april. How does this weaken the argument that If we drop the restriction altogether than it will help other species. In D , it is stated that they have moved on to a different location so dropping the restriction will have no affect. Option B tells you that the restriction has not come into effect since many years. "It has been many years since ..." means the restriction came into effect many years ago and since then, it has NOT come into effect. So if the hunting season is from Jan to June, it has been closing in June only. This means that even if hunters hunt for the entire hunting season, they still do not reach the 5% limit. So removing the restriction will have no effect. D only tells you that the increasing population has led to colonizing other grounds too. It just tells you that the population has increased a lot and the geese are spreading. It doesn't say that removing the restrictions will not help. Understand the argument: Snow geese populate the Arctic (i.e. the north pole region) and are displacing other species there. They move south in winters where there numbers are reduced due to hunting. There are restrictions on hunting. The argument says 'remove these restrictions so that the number of geese reduces more so that other species can survive. Now your option B tells you that the restrictions are ancient and are meaningful today. They haven't come into effect for many years. Then removing the restrictions won't help, isn't it? On the other hand, option D says that the geese population has increased and now they are also using those grounds in the southern regions that they had not used for many years. How does it imply that removing restrictions will not help? It doesn't imply that. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2012
Posts: 204
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 750 Q47 V47
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 44

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  22 Nov 2012, 10:58
New to all this, so bear with me. I believe the answer is B.

The argument is that the restriction in place for hunting the geese is not allowing hunters to bring down the population of geese. This is supported by "Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

Essentially: Geese displace Arctic bids - kill more geese - recover Arctic birds
Roadblock to achieve above: Hunting Restrictions

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. (This would support, not undermine)
[color=#00ff00](B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. (The restriction has not made hunters kill less geese. In fact, they can kill more geese under this restriction. Lifting the restriction will not correlate to a spike in hunting the geese. Correct answer)[/color]
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. (insignificant)
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. (insignificant)
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. (supports the argument, not undermine)
Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 926
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 456 [0], given: 543

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  27 Nov 2013, 01:02
Can someone explain this question in detail OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Intern
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 12
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 6

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  27 Nov 2013, 08:32
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
tapdoanhp wrote:
I am not so convinced by the phrase "hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date". Do you mean that NOT hunting til the last scheduled day will secure that the geese hunted does not reach limit? What about the case that they hunt so fast that reach the limit and they have to stop hunting before the scheduled day?
I am so confused with this question. Help me please!

It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

Hi Karishma,

The restriction does really matter if the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date because the hunters have already reduced the population by five percent before the scheduled date. So dropping the restriction would help the other pecies recover, for example, increase the reduction to 10%.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5539
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1370

Kudos [?]: 6969 [0], given: 178

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  27 Nov 2013, 20:03
Expert's post
AnChu wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
tapdoanhp wrote:
I am not so convinced by the phrase "hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date". Do you mean that NOT hunting til the last scheduled day will secure that the geese hunted does not reach limit? What about the case that they hunt so fast that reach the limit and they have to stop hunting before the scheduled day?
I am so confused with this question. Help me please!

It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

Hi Karishma,

The restriction does really matter if the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date because the hunters have already reduced the population by five percent before the scheduled date. So dropping the restriction would help the other pecies recover, for example, increase the reduction to 10%.

Snow geese breed in Arctic and fly south for winter. They are proliferating which is bad for other birds. Southern hunters reduce the number of geese when they fly south. There is a restriction in place that if the population of the geese that came reduces by 5%, hunting will stop. So if 100 birds flew south and 5 were hunted, hunting will stop. If 1000 birds flew south and 50 were hunted, hunting will be stopped. The argument says that we should drop this restriction to help other birds flourish (conclusion). Then hunters will hunt many more birds and reduce their numbers. Then the other Arctic birds will flourish.

We need to weaken it and say that dropping the restriction will not help other Arctic birds flourish. Even if this restriction of 'not hunting after 5%' is dropped and hunters are allowed to hunt as much as they want, the population of geese will still not reduce.

(B) says that the it has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. This means that for many years, the 5% limit has not been reached. So southern hunters anyway hunt less than 50 birds when 1000 birds fly down south. So whether you have the restriction or not, the number of geese hunted is the same. Usually hunters hunt less than 50 birds. So even if you drop the restriction and tell them that they can hunt as much as they want, it will not help since they don't want to hunt much. They usually hunt only a little bit. So the geese population will not reduce by dropping this restriction.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Manager Joined: 09 Apr 2013 Posts: 144 Location: India WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting) Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 18 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 28 Nov 2013, 03:20 D seems convincing. Since the question asks us to weaken the argument, identify the conclusion "dropping this restiction would allow the other species to recover" We need to find a reason to prove that the other species may not recover even though restriction over hunting is dropped. So if the snow geeze population spreads through other areas, then relaxing restrictions over hunting in southern region will not help other species to survive as the threat of snow geeze still exists. Hope I made some sense. _________________ +1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks "Those, who never do any more than they get paid for, never get paid for any more than they do" Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5539 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1370 Kudos [?]: 6969 [1] , given: 178 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 28 Nov 2013, 20:55 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post cssk wrote: D seems convincing. Since the question asks us to weaken the argument, identify the conclusion "dropping this restiction would allow the other species to recover" We need to find a reason to prove that the other species may not recover even though restriction over hunting is dropped. So if the snow geeze population spreads through other areas, then relaxing restrictions over hunting in southern region will not help other species to survive as the threat of snow geeze still exists. Hope I made some sense. (D) is not correct. "wintering grounds" implies the southern region (where they fly for winter). In south, they have re-colonized regions they had not occupied for a while now. This doesn't imply that dropping the restriction and letting hunters hunt as much as they want to will not decrease their population. The hunters hunt in the southern region. Nothing says they don't hunt in the regions where the geese have recolonized now. Understand the argument: Snow geese populate the Arctic (i.e. the north pole region) and are displacing other species there. They move south in winters where there numbers are reduced due to hunting. There are restrictions on hunting. The argument says 'remove these restrictions so that the number of geese reduces more so that other species can survive. Saying that geese are recolonizing larger parts of the southern region doesn't imply that dropping restrictions will not help. In fact, if anything, it may make the argument a little stronger. If the geese are occupying more southern areas, hunting grounds may become easily accessible to more hunters and dropping hunting restrictions may actually help more! _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 144
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 18

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  28 Nov 2013, 23:25
B makes sense to me now after following all your posts.

The main point with D is "snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds". Even after recolonization, the snow geeze will be still in southern region, helping the hunters to catch them more easily once the restrictions are lifted off. So rather than weakening the conclusion, choice D strengthens it.

Thank you Karishma. Great explanation.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Those, who never do any more than they get paid for, never get paid for any more than they do"

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp   [#permalink] 28 Nov 2013, 23:25

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 72 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close 1 13 Apr 2008, 16:15
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close 2 17 Feb 2008, 22:20
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close 2 05 Mar 2007, 02:36
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close 8 23 Jun 2006, 08:55
The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close 1 02 Apr 2006, 12:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by