|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[1] , given: 2
|
The popular notion that a tree's age can be determined by [#permalink]
 13 Oct 2009, 06:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
68% (02:14) correct
31% (01:40) wrong based on 5 sessions
The popular notion that a tree's age can be determined by counting the number of internal rings in its trunk is generally true. However, to help regulate the internal temperature of the tree, the outermost layers of wood of the Brazilian ash often peel away when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, leaving the tree with fewer rings than it would otherwise have. So only if the temperature in the Brazilian ash's environment never exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit will its rings be a reliable measure of the tree's age.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
A. The growth of new rings in a tree is not a function of levels of precipitation.
B. Only the Brazilian ash loses rings because of excessive heat.
C. Only one day of temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to cause the Brazilian ash to lose a ring.
D. The internal rings of all trees are of uniform thickness.
E. The number of rings that will be lost when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit is not predictable
OA to come
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 07:44
I will choose "A"Going with PoE Round 1 A - This can be right B - This is being clearly stated in the argument and is therefore not an assumption C - This can be right D - This is not at al relevant to the premise or the conclusion E - This has also been stated in the argument and should therefore not be an assumption Round 2 We are left with A and C. "A" - "A" is more appropriate because it affects the conclusion directly, if this is the assumption only then conclusion can be true. "C" - for how long the temprature should stay at 95 for the ring to shed is no where being mentioned either in the premise or in conclusion..it therefore seems un-related.
_________________
- Its all about correctness first and then the timing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 278
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 07:51
IMO its E ...If there is no way only then can the age of the tree be not determined accurately...Paul please explain where does this come as stated in the argument.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 252
Schools: Ross
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:02
IMO, OA is E Quote: The number of rings that will be lost when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit is not predictable As we cannot predict how many rings were lost because of the temperature fluctuations,we cannot predict the age of the tree. - I would go for this choice. Quote: A. The growth of new rings in a tree is not a function of levels of precipitation. - Irrelevant
B. Only the Brazilian ash loses rings because of excessive heat. - Out of Scope
C. Only one day of temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to cause the Brazilian ash to lose a ring. - Out of Scope
D. The internal rings of all trees are of uniform thickness. - Irrelevant
_________________
Keep trying no matter how hard it seems, it will get easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 338
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:09
I will go for E.
"The number of rings that will be lost when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit is not predictable" . Negating this statement. The conclusion becomes invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:19
and excerpt from the argument is ...leaving the tree with fewer rings than it would otherwise have. ... does "fewer" not directly mean that how many will shed is not predictable ? I therefore think that "E" is already available in the argument and therefore after that "A" is the only possible answer.
_________________
- Its all about correctness first and then the timing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 274
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
60
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:47
AGREE ON E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 252
Schools: Ross
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:55
An assumption can be a parapharse of the premise given in the argument. You can still consider it a valid assumption eventhough it is a repeat.
_________________
Keep trying no matter how hard it seems, it will get easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 278
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 09:14
agree with vannu's reasoning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 12:17
IEsailor wrote: agree with vannu's reasoning I do too! Especially since the OA is E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 921
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
123
[0], given: 18
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 20:05
E is correct.
Try to negate A. The negation will strengthen or make the argument valid. Only if there was precipitation every year the age of tree can be determined. If this was not true then there was some other reason for the formation of new rings, and then the entire reasoning of the argument is destroyed.
A was correct if 'not' was omitted from A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Other
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 54321
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
19 Oct 2009, 07:03
assumption must be
1, in context of evidence
2, support conclusion
3,pass negation tess
the answer meet 2,and 3, but is out of context is attractive but wrong. A is a sample of this. E is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 115
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
20 Oct 2009, 03:36
I first chose C, because I thought that the central point was to determine the age of the tree regardless the number of times the temperature goes above 95. But paraphrasing the argument, we could say: "Only when the temperature does not go above 95, we can determine the age of the Brazilian tree". Thus, the answer E is the best. (one more to the error log!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1400
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
84
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 May 2011, 04:19
clean E.
_________________
Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
58
[0], given: 51
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
13 May 2011, 22:09
so simple E . but took 1:21 min , and this is a relatively small stimulus, so the timing is the issue.
_________________
What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 202
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
16 Sep 2011, 06:37
E it is... Not really a 700 level question..
_________________
Two great challenges: 1. Guts to Fail and 2. Fear to Succeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 147
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
16 Sep 2011, 09:31
vannu wrote: An assumption can be a parapharse of the premise given in the argument. You can still consider it a valid assumption eventhough it is a repeat. Is that correct..Can it be a paraphrase?Shoudn't it be something which is unstated in the passage(not out of scope, but unstated). Here E is the clear winner though..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 314
Location: United States (FL)
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
Schools: Wharton '14 (D), CBS '14 (WL), Ross '14 (WL), Haas '14 (D), Johnson '14 (A), McCombs '14, Kenan-Flagler '14 (M), Madison (A), Consortium (D), Consortium (A), Consortium (M), Consortium, Consortium (A), Consortium (WL)
GPA: 3.65
WE: Project Management (Real Estate)
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
41
[0], given: 56
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
16 Sep 2011, 14:06
I picked E...I think is the most logical one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 177
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
18 Sep 2011, 02:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Retaking next month
Affiliations: None
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 232
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V27
GPA: 3.01
WE: Sales (Manufacturing)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 32
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings [#permalink]
20 Sep 2011, 20:53
I will go with 'E'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Tuesday Q5 - Tree Rings
[#permalink]
20 Sep 2011, 20:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
