|
Author |
Message |
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
 11 Oct 2007, 18:53
No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1478
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 19:22
humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
This is tough.
For some reason, I feel B is the only one I feel it is correct, but I am not so sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 938
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 19:35
humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
conclusion: law to prohibit use of the Yucaipa tree-bark oil is unnecessary since no worry about decline.
i got answer E. this states another source with how the population of the trees could diminish.
Last edited by beckee529 on 11 Oct 2007, 19:39, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 19:36
humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
I say E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 55
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
E. It is the only answer to explain why the trees are dwindling in the face of laws that protect the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1612
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
54
[0], given: 2
|
Yup, E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 121
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 20:06
humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
Interesting, we have some different answers.
I say B. Because we're trying to weaken the conclusion that the law is useless.
So in other words we have to "support" the law: No Yucaipa oil in cosmetics.
A. Number of trees is irrelevant to the discussion, because we are concerned with the decline, not total number.
B. This basically says that people have no reason to cut down the trees except for producing the oil. Thus, the law is removing all reasons for people to contribute to the destruction of the trees.
C. Maybe, but you have to stretch what it's saying to make it work.
D. Labor cost is irrelevant.
E. If anything, this is supporting the conclusion. It's saying the trees are going to die anyway, might as well repeal the law so we can get the oil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1478
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 0
|
My reasoning is the same as JingChan, but couldn't explain it as clear as he did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 938
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 22:12
JingChan wrote: humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction. Interesting, we have some different answers. I say B. Because we're trying to weaken the conclusion that the law is useless. So in other words we have to "support" the law: No Yucaipa oil in cosmetics. A. Number of trees is irrelevant to the discussion, because we are concerned with the decline, not total number. B. This basically says that people have no reason to cut down the trees except for producing the oil. Thus, the law is removing all reasons for people to contribute to the destruction of the trees. C. Maybe, but you have to stretch what it's saying to make it work. D. Labor cost is irrelevant. E. If anything, this is supporting the conclusion. It's saying the trees are going to die anyway, might as well repeal the law so we can get the oil. lol.. the reason i didn't pick B was because i thought it would force us to make an additional assumption that the only reason why the trees was cut was for the oil and there was no other other reason for cutting down the trees... and then from that using the oil just for consumer goods (in this case only cosmetics) and not anything else
i thought E was a stronger answer with no additional assumptions necessary.. tree population must be maintained.. wild animals destroying the trees..must keep law
i could be wrong, please chime in for error in my logic..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3437
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
135
[0], given: 2
|
whats the conclusion of the passage? that the nation should repeal the law... we are tryin to weaken that ...
C gets it right...it says the demand is rising for cosmetics and thus we need the law to keep the trees protected
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 121
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 22:45
The law in this passage merely states, you can't use oil in cosmetics.
It doesn't say anything about not being able to cut down trees.
The conclusion of the passage is saying there is no connection between using oil and cutting down trees. We can weaken that argument by finding a connection.
B provides a link to the law and the destruction of the trees, which weakens the conclusion that the law is useless.
C falls short because we realize it's not actually saying anything. It makes two statements about the future:
1. People overseas won't want oil as much.
2. Nothing changing in how much we want oil.
And we know #1 is irrelevant, and the second statement is just saying things are staying the same.
E doesn't make any logical jump between oil and destruction of trees, you have to already make the assumption that the law is useful for E to matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 938
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
11 Oct 2007, 23:04
JingChan wrote: The law in this passage merely states, you can't use oil in cosmetics.
It doesn't say anything about not being able to cut down trees.
The conclusion of the passage is saying there is no connection between using oil and cutting down trees. We can weaken that argument by finding a connection.
B provides a link to the law and the destruction of the trees, which weakens the conclusion that the law is useless.
C falls short because we realize it's not actually saying anything. It makes two statements about the future:
1. People overseas won't want oil as much.
2. Nothing changing in how much we want oil.
And we know #1 is irrelevant, and the second statement is just saying things are staying the same.
E doesn't make any logical jump between oil and destruction of trees, you have to already make the assumption that the law is useful for E to matter.
good explanation.. i could see the error in my logic now! initially, i was concerned with trying to prove that the trees were "in danger" so that the law would necessary and not "useless"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 144
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
12 Oct 2007, 03:43
beckee529 wrote: JingChan wrote: The law in this passage merely states, you can't use oil in cosmetics.
It doesn't say anything about not being able to cut down trees.
The conclusion of the passage is saying there is no connection between using oil and cutting down trees. We can weaken that argument by finding a connection.
B provides a link to the law and the destruction of the trees, which weakens the conclusion that the law is useless.
C falls short because we realize it's not actually saying anything. It makes two statements about the future:
1. People overseas won't want oil as much.
2. Nothing changing in how much we want oil.
And we know #1 is irrelevant, and the second statement is just saying things are staying the same.
E doesn't make any logical jump between oil and destruction of trees, you have to already make the assumption that the law is useful for E to matter. good explanation.. i could see the error in my logic now! initially, i was concerned with trying to prove that the trees were "in danger" so that the law would necessary and not "useless" I also chose E but I still did not understand the logic explaned for B. My head it getting hot so I will leave for the day and again open it on Tuesday since Monday is holiday for us due to Hari Raya festival in Singapore  ) may be from home I will access this site )
tensed!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 121
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
12 Oct 2007, 06:55
Google'd the passage, OA is D(!!!)
IMO a bad question, very subjective.
D is saying that this is evidence that the law is effective because it's pushing labor costs up in comparison to other places that do not have the law.
Makes sense... but... weird.
Last edited by JingChan on 12 Oct 2007, 14:24, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 938
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
12 Oct 2007, 08:09
JingChan wrote: Google'd the passage, OA is D(!!!)
IMO a bad question, very subjective.
D is saying that this law is evidence that the law is effective because it's pushing labor costs up in comparison to other places that do not have the law.
Makes sense... but... weird.
wow really? thats some weird a$$ logic.. must not be a gmat representative question heheh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
OA is D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 331
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
13 Oct 2007, 06:28
humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
Assumption: Only possible cause of Y-tree in this nation is "Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics"
Best is D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 331
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
13 Oct 2007, 06:30
singh_amit19 wrote: humtum0 wrote: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
B. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
C. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
D. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
E. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction. Assumption: Only possible cause of Y-tree in this nation is "Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics"Best is D BINGO!!! Little late in posting but correct......
I zeroed dwon to D & E........but E is a lesser strong alternative [as it just suggests SOME wild animals eat Y-tree] vs. E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 371
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
13 Oct 2007, 21:06
I still dont understand how D. Could someone please explain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 938
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population [#permalink]
13 Oct 2007, 21:14
spider wrote: I still dont understand how D. Could someone please explain
exactly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Yucaipa tree population
[#permalink]
13 Oct 2007, 21:14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Zarrolou, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat
|
close
