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

 It is currently 13 Oct 2015, 06:43

### 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:
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 159
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 84

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  29 Nov 2013, 18:11
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
antiant wrote:
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.

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.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

Please submit an expert post on this Q.

_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 159
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 84

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  29 Nov 2013, 18:21
Bluelagoon 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.

I agree with you; right answer must be D.

_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Intern
Status: FTW
Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 13
Location: India
GMAT Date: 09-27-2014
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Venture Capital)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 260

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  30 Nov 2013, 21:00
OA is B

It occurred to me that in (D), the region that we are talking about here is southern vs. Arctic, which might not effectively have anything to do to affect the conclusion.
However, with (B), since the hunting season is ending before the scheduled time, that means hunters are reaching the max 5% and there still has been been an increase in the geese population. Therefore, dropping the restriction will also do no good.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 309
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 190 [1] , given: 40

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  05 Feb 2014, 04:44
1
KUDOS
Conclusion:
Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Reasoning:
Here's a causal reasoning in that dropping the hunting restriction would allow the other species [arctic birds] to recover. Thus, any other claim that disproves the relationship works. Look for: 1) alternative causes 2) no cause -> effect 3) cause -> no effect 4) reverse relationship 5) undermining data.

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. Opposite answer - Strengthen. If hunting limits were imposed + hunting has reduced population over five percent, then dropping the restriction would likely allow the other species to 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. OK - This weakens the conclusion in that if the cause happened [dropping the restriction had occurred], then there would be no effect [species would not have recovered] (because there's already too many geese).

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. Opposite answer - Strengthen. If the number of snow geese taken by hunter has grown + a sharp increase in snow geese are displacing bird of less vigorous species, then dropping the restriction would allow the other species to recover. A lot of different nouns to keep track of makes this choice confusing.

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. Out of scope. Whether or not the snow geese had the grounds before the Arctic birds, the main claim still stands that dropping the hunting restriction would help.

(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. Opposite answer - Strengthen. If the snow geese had no natural predation, then dropping the restriction would allow the other species to recover.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 309
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 40

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  05 Feb 2014, 04:48
reetskaur wrote:
OA is B

It occurred to me that in (D), the region that we are talking about here is southern vs. Arctic, which might not effectively have anything to do to affect the conclusion.
However, with (B), since the hunting season is ending before the scheduled time, that means hunters are reaching the max 5% and there still has been been an increase in the geese population. Therefore, dropping the restriction will also do no good.

Hi reetskaur,

Your reasoning for B above is backwards. The hunters have not reached their 5% max. Therefore, dropping the restriction would do no good.
I hope this helps.
Current Student
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 352
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 68

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  05 Feb 2014, 08:33
WE HAVE TO FIND AN ANSWER WHICH PROVES THAT THAT EVEN IF hunting season IS PERMITTED BEYOND THE reduction in the population of geese by five percent, the population would not be reduced to the extent that Arctic birds are not threatened anymore.....

what if the wintering grounds are not fixed and the birds surprise the hunters by changing to new locations for wintering.......

clear "D".....

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons....CORRECT...

Intern
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 20
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V38
GPA: 3
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 14

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  10 Mar 2014, 01:56
I would say C.

C says that the increase in hunting has no effect to control the growth and it clearly undermines the argument that increase in hunting would cut down the population of geese which would in turn save other species.

As I have just started preparing, there is a good chance that I might be wrong. If that's the case, kindly explain why it cannot be C.

Cheers,
Govind
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5977
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1533

Kudos [?]: 8489 [2] , given: 194

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]  10 Mar 2014, 21:48
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
govindsowrirajan wrote:
I would say C.

C says that the increase in hunting has no effect to control the growth and it clearly undermines the argument that increase in hunting would cut down the population of geese which would in turn save other species.

As I have just started preparing, there is a good chance that I might be wrong. If that's the case, kindly explain why it cannot be C.

Cheers,
Govind

Actually (C) is not correct.

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.

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

(C) doesn't tell us how dropping the restriction would impact the geese population. It just tells us what has happened in the past - the number of geese hunted has been increasing. If anything, it might strengthen our conclusion if the number of geese hunted is close to 5% of the population. When the population decreases by 5%, if the restriction is dropped, chances are that more geese will be hunted and other species will recover. We have to show how even after dropping the restriction, the other species may not recover.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 10 Mar 2014 Posts: 20 Location: United States Concentration: General Management, Finance GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V38 GPA: 3 WE: Programming (Computer Software) Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 14 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 10 Mar 2014, 22:02 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: govindsowrirajan wrote: I would say C. C says that the increase in hunting has no effect to control the growth and it clearly undermines the argument that increase in hunting would cut down the population of geese which would in turn save other species. As I have just started preparing, there is a good chance that I might be wrong. If that's the case, kindly explain why it cannot be C. Cheers, Govind Actually (C) is not correct. 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. (C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. (C) doesn't tell us how dropping the restriction would impact the geese population. It just tells us what has happened in the past - the number of geese hunted has been increasing. If anything, it might strengthen our conclusion if the number of geese hunted is close to 5% of the population. When the population decreases by 5%, if the restriction is dropped, chances are that more geese will be hunted and other species will recover. We have to show how even after dropping the restriction, the other species may not recover. Ah. I see it now. Need to get working to avoid such blunders. Thanks a lot for the explanation. Cheers Govind Senior Manager Joined: 10 Mar 2013 Posts: 264 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 2211 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 31 May 2014, 18:08 Ugh! I just took this question in my GMATPrep practice exam session and eliminated B, because of irrelevance. Even after I read B again, it sounds so convoluted and seems to be intentionally written (mainly because of the "being") such that most can not understand it. I can vouch that the OA is B though. Intern Joined: 29 Jul 2014 Posts: 3 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 19 Oct 2014, 14:49 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: 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. I think this explanation is quite clear, I misunderstood the "it has been many years since…“ . The correct understanding is that it happened before,but never since then. So in the recent several years, the hunting season has not been closed earlier, which means the hunters do not reach the 5% for years. Director Joined: 03 Feb 2013 Posts: 845 Location: India Concentration: Operations, Strategy Schools: Tepper '17 (M) GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44 GPA: 3.88 WE: Engineering (Computer Software) Followers: 73 Kudos [?]: 494 [0], given: 537 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 12 May 2015, 20:34 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. Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument? Conclusion : Dropping the restriction will increase the population of species of arctic birds which are predated by geese. (A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese -> Irrelevant (B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date -> This option says that there are so many geese that every year, the hunting season ends (with the 5% restriction) earlier than scheduled date. So the population productivity is more and cannot be decreased drastically by dropping the restriction -> Correct (C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years -> Supports the conclusion (D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons The premise doesn't say that hunters cannot go to "recolonized wintering grounds" so doesn't impact the argument (E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation -> Irrelevant _________________ Thanks, Kinjal Struggling with GMAT ? Experience http://www.gmatify.com/ My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961 My Linkedin Handle: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAIAAAbtjagB9G1MrEzTRYDRGroXuSmZO0ZhoK0 Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful Intern Joined: 29 Apr 2014 Posts: 37 Location: Viet Nam Concentration: Finance, Technology GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V26 GMAT 2: 660 Q51 V27 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 6 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 18 Aug 2015, 00:39 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: AnChu wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: 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. Great explanation Karisshma. Actually, I think many of guys here (including me initially) misunderstand the meaning that choice B conveys: (B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date We all agree that the hunting season is closed because: The 5% limit is reached before scheduled date OR The scheduled date comes. At first, I thought the meaning of choice B is that the hunting season has been closed earlier than the scheduled date for many years. However, the correct meaning of choice B is that for many years, the above case has not been happening.. For example, let's say 2010 was the last year that the hunting season was closed earlier than scheduled date. So for 5 years, from 2010 to 2015, the hunting season has been closed at the scheduled date and the hunting down rate was below or equal to 5% at the closing date. Then, choice B actually weakens the argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Intern Joined: 26 Jun 2015 Posts: 1 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 08 Oct 2015, 03:11 fluke wrote: antiant wrote: 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. 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. (B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. (C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. (D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. (E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. Good question. "B" tells us that the hunters are not able to hunt even 5% of the snow geese population before the hunting season. Thus, lowering the restriction, or in other words, increasing the percent decrease to any value greater than 5 won't help at all. Scenario: 100000- Snow geese available Hunting restriction says: Can't hunt more than 5% of 100000 i.e. 5000 in the hunting season. Fact: Hunters are not able to reach 5000 target by the close of the hunting season. Argument: Increase the maximum number of geese that could be hunted to a value greater than 5%, say 10%. Even if the law allows the hunter to hunt 10,000 geese, it wouldn't do any good. If the hunters are not able to reach 5000 hunting target, they will definitely not reach 10,000 target. Thus, "B" undermines the argument/suggestion. Ans: "B" But in that case, aint we ignoring the line "The hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent," which I guess implies that hunting season is active only until 5% birds are killed. And since the hunters kill 5% birds earlier than the estimated end of season ("hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date"), is'nt option B indirectly strengthening the argument for removal of these restrictions ? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5977 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1533 Kudos [?]: 8489 [0], given: 194 Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink] 08 Oct 2015, 21:02 Expert's post hvb750 wrote: fluke wrote: antiant wrote: 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. 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. (B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. (C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. (D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. (E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. Good question. "B" tells us that the hunters are not able to hunt even 5% of the snow geese population before the hunting season. Thus, lowering the restriction, or in other words, increasing the percent decrease to any value greater than 5 won't help at all. Scenario: 100000- Snow geese available Hunting restriction says: Can't hunt more than 5% of 100000 i.e. 5000 in the hunting season. Fact: Hunters are not able to reach 5000 target by the close of the hunting season. Argument: Increase the maximum number of geese that could be hunted to a value greater than 5%, say 10%. Even if the law allows the hunter to hunt 10,000 geese, it wouldn't do any good. If the hunters are not able to reach 5000 hunting target, they will definitely not reach 10,000 target. Thus, "B" undermines the argument/suggestion. Ans: "B" But in that case, aint we ignoring the line "The hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent," which I guess implies that hunting season is active only until 5% birds are killed. And since the hunters kill 5% birds earlier than the estimated end of season ("hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date"), is'nt option B indirectly strengthening the argument for removal of these restrictions ? Say the hunting season is from 1st Dec to 28th Feb. It closes early if population decreases by 5%. (B) It has been many years since that limit has reached means for many years that limit has NOT been reached (I think you misunderstood option (B)) So option (B) is telling you that the rule has NO impact since the 5% limit anyway is not reached. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp   [#permalink] 08 Oct 2015, 21:02

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 75 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Some paleontologists believe that certain species of 7 25 Nov 2011, 08:42
Despite its 1989 designation as a threatened species, the 1 05 Jun 2011, 07:37
3 Guillemots are birds of Arctic regions. They feed on fish 9 02 Sep 2010, 10:55
11 Guillemots are birds of Arctic regions. They feed on fish 14 28 Jan 2010, 12:32
15 Guillemots are birds for arctic regions. They feed on fish 22 07 Aug 2009, 19:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by