Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Which of the following most logically completes the argument [#permalink]
22 Feb 2005, 19:48
100% (01:02) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
The expansion of large-scale farming in Africa and Asia has destroyed much of the natural vegetation on which elephants have historically depended, forcing them to turn to cultivated land to satisfy their enormous appetites. As a result, farmers have lost millions of dollars worth of crops annually. Yet even if elephant sanctuaries were created on a widespread basis to guarantee elephants sufficient natural vegetation, the raiding would likely persist, since .................
(A) when elephants forage for food, they typically travel in herds.
(B) foraging elephants have been known to cause substantial damage even to plants that they do not eat.
(C) some of the land where crops have suffered extensive damage from elephants has been allowed to return to its natural state.
(D) elephants tend to prefer cultivated crops to wild vegetation as a food source
(E) elephant sanctuaries are usually created in areas that are rich in the natural vegetation on which elephants have historically depended.
My pick would be D.
If there is a clash between B and D, my pick would be D.
In B, its given that Elephants are known to cause damage to the vegetation, even to the plants that elephants do not eat. But, it was already given that the elephants are used to quench their appetites by depending on the cultivated lands. So, if they return to these cultivated lands, its not because that this vegetation is not suitable for consumption, but because elephants might prefer cultivated crops for wild vegetation.
Elephants do not come to cultivated lands to destroy them, but rather to consume them probably because they prefer cultivated lands.
I'm going with D....If they prefer cultivated crops over natural vegetation that still means that the farmers will have to provide this for them...so the wild vegetiation will be useless as implied by the passage..
I wouldnot choose B because you have to provide a reason why the "raiding" would persist to fill in the blank and B does not provide that answer. _________________
I agree with D. They might destroy plant where they pass through even without eating, but if they were given enough food there is no reason they would go all the way to the farm lands just to destroy the crops for the sake of it, unless there's some other reasons that would draw them there, such as they like the tastes of the crops.
The argument here is that the propsed sanctuary would not work, and elephatns would continue to raid cultivated land for food. For this to hold, choice (D) would be ideal.
(A) says nothign except elephants travel in herds. They could travel in herds but feed on natural vegetation, and thus not raid cultivated land.
(B) is close. We could argue that the elephants will damage the natural vegetation but again, this is not even close to the word 'raiding'. Accidental damage is not raiding.
(C) This is out of scope. It merely says some of the cultivatled land plots are given up to create sanctuaries.
(D) will pull the argument in favor of the conclusion that sanctuaries are useless. If elephants prefer cultivated crops, they will continue to raid these crops even if there are plenty of natural vegetation for them to feed on.
(E) out of scope. We're interested in why elephants return to raid the cultivated crops. Here it talks about where to create elephant sanctuaries.
Initially I wrote something about the following comment,
Why not B? Please just don't shoot answers. It doesn't help anyone. We are hear to learn as well, not just grade you:)
but since I wanted to maintain the decorum I went back and edited it - I tried deleting it I could not.
BTW pb_india there are at times people sneak into this board during work hours and there isn't much time to write explanations but I think you are too young to understand all this and moreover I feel that you are somebody who runs his mouth because he has an audience - you are not ETS, so you do not have to grade me. If you had stopped with
"Please just don't shoot answers. " I would have written something courteously but you had to go further and show your true color.
rthothad, I appreciate the way you used humor in a situation that might have otherwise caused bitterness. Instead of a bitter feeling it brought laughs and smiles to all of us. You are right there are numerous reasons why one cannot give a full explanation of his/her answer sometimes. I did it many times too. Sometimes it's a time issue, other times it may be because I just didn't feel I have a strong reasoning I could share or I was afraid that my reasoning could be wrong, and yet other times I wanted to give others the chance of independent thinking. On the other hand I'm sure pb_india did not mean to offend anybody. The disadvantage of posting in a forum instead of face-to-face talking is that sometimes the exact meaning of somebody cannot be precisely conveyed. That's why I believe a humorous taking in these kind of situations would be highly appreciated.
Perhaps we should reserve 1121 as a special term to be used in this forum when we feel like to give somebody a friendly nudge, huh?
Check out this awesome article about Anderson on Poets Quants, http://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/02/uclas-anderson-school-morphs-into-a-friendly-tech-hub/ . Anderson is a great place! Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I...