|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 231
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Zoologists warn of an imminent surge in the number of animal [#permalink]
 15 Jun 2006, 10:47
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Zoologists warn of an imminent surge in the number of animal species that will become extinct within this century. They caution that the rate of extinction will only increase. They are wrong, however. One need only consider the information gathered on insects: 47 species of North American insect vanished between 1900 and 1950, but only 23 species of such insects became extinct between 1950 and 2000.
The answer to which of the following questions provides information that would be most helpful in evaluating the argument above?
A. How many species of non-native insect species have been introduced into North America since 1950?
B. Has any special effort been made to save North American insect species?
C. How many years' experience do the zoologists have in evaluating patterns of extinction among animals?
D. Are insects susceptible to the same causes of extinction as are mammals?
E. How many acres of woodland are set aside each year as wildlife refuges?
_________________
Who is John Galt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 791
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
B, I think...
A) We are discussing North American insects as a sample population, non-native species do not fall in the group.
B) If yes, then other species may not follow the same reduced rate of extinction, if no, then the authors conjecture may be viable.
C) Experience of the researchers is out of scope.
D) Causes of extinction are not being discussed. Nor are we particularly interested only in insects and mammals.
E) Area of wildlife refuges is also beyond the scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1278
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
B. Has any special effort been made to save North American insect species?
B fits...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 950
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Zoologists [#permalink]
15 Jun 2006, 12:19
X & Y wrote: Zoologists warn of an imminent surge in the number of animal species that will become extinct within this century. They caution that the rate of extinction will only increase. They are wrong, however. One need only consider the information gathered on insects: 47 species of North American insect vanished between 1900 and 1950, but only 23 species of such insects became extinct between 1950 and 2000.
The answer to which of the following questions provides information that would be most helpful in evaluating the argument above?
A. How many species of non-native insect species have been introduced into North America since 1950?
B. Has any special effort been made to save North American insect species?
C. How many years' experience do the zoologists have in evaluating patterns of extinction among animals?
D. Are insects susceptible to the same causes of extinction as are mammals?
E. How many acres of woodland are set aside each year as wildlife refuges?
Trap question folks!!
A - Money
B - out of scope
C - out of scope
D - out of scope
E - What the hell are you talkin bout??
_________________
I believe its yogurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 950
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
paddyboy wrote: B, I think...
A) We are discussing North American insects as a sample population, non-native species do not fall in the group.
B) If yes, then other species may not follow the same reduced rate of extinction, if no, then the authors conjecture may be viable.
C) Experience of the researchers is out of scope.
D) Causes of extinction are not being discussed. Nor are we particularly interested only in insects and mammals.
E) Area of wildlife refuges is also beyond the scope.
Consider 71 north american insect species were there in 1899, then use quant skills 
_________________
I believe its yogurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 79
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
gmatmba wrote: paddyboy wrote: B, I think...
A) We are discussing North American insects as a sample population, non-native species do not fall in the group.
B) If yes, then other species may not follow the same reduced rate of extinction, if no, then the authors conjecture may be viable.
C) Experience of the researchers is out of scope.
D) Causes of extinction are not being discussed. Nor are we particularly interested only in insects and mammals.
E) Area of wildlife refuges is also beyond the scope. Consider 71 north american insect species were there in 1899, then use quant skills Yes it should be A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1278
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
I hate trap questions... should've seen that coming! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Definitely D
The argument is based on the analogy between mammals and insects. However this analogy should be justified first. So the most important question is whether they are both susceptible to the same causes of extinction, otherwise the argument is pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 634
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 0
|
I vote for ^ D ^
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 950
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
deowl wrote: Definitely D
The argument is based on the analogy between mammals and insects. However this analogy should be justified first. So the most important question is whether they are both susceptible to the same causes of extinction, otherwise the argument is pointless.
This could be very true. But stem says animals, which could mean mammals, birds, intects, reptiles, etc ......why should we only stick to mammals? Can you please help me understand?
_________________
I believe its yogurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is obvious that most of us will choose 'D'...
But I think the answer to 'D' & 'B' will be either an 'Yes' or 'No'.. Unless you ask more questions the facts are not given...
C - irrelevant...They are already considered as zoologists and their opinion is taken seriously for discussion...
E - May be 1 million acres ...so what ??
The author counter argues with numbers. So it is very important to know the validity of the numbers. If they are tampered with infusion of new insect species..then his argument is baseles...
So I will go for 'A' clocked around 150 secs..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 284
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 2
|
I will also go for A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 588
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
My money and vote for D.
The argument just says that the number of extinctions within insects has drastically come down but it is flawed to apply the same rule to other animals.Only if the insects and other animals have the same cause of extinction, then its probably justified to say that there will b indeed lesser extinctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
gmatmba wrote: deowl wrote: Definitely D
The argument is based on the analogy between mammals and insects. However this analogy should be justified first. So the most important question is whether they are both susceptible to the same causes of extinction, otherwise the argument is pointless. This could be very true. But stem says animals, which could mean mammals, birds, intects, reptiles, etc ......why should we only stick to mammals? Can you please help me understand? The arguer makes a general assertion regarding all kinds of animals. However his example is dealing with only one very specific group: the insects. Obviously his argument is based on assumption that the distinction rate of insects is analogous to that of other animals, such as mammals for example. To stegthen his argument , he must prove that the destinction among insects could be considered a general case within animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 126
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I vote for D.
Increasing the number of species will only provide more opportunities for extinction. But that does not mean rate of extinction will increase or decrease if we increase the nnumber of species
Only D and not A will influence the rate
I think it is time for OA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 231
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
For this one I selected D, However OA is B.
Great Work all of you!!! 
_________________
Who is John Galt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Do you have an OE?
What is the source of this CR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
X & Y wrote: For this one I selected D, However OA is B.Great Work all of you!!! It will be of great help if you could post the OE as well.. this is a genuine request for this challenging CR..
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2934
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 0
|
B it is.
After reading the argument what you want to evaluate:
1. What is the cause of extinction?
2. Is the data given representtative?
3. Is the trend given applies to animal species as well?
Now lets go the answer choices:
A. Nope. We are talking about extinctions not introduction of new species.
B. You got it? The data given may or may not be respresentative. i.e the decrease in the extinction between 1950 and 2000 is because of what reason? This is what you want to evaluate.
C. Out of scope
D. Animals could be mammals, reptiles etc.
E. We are evaluating the trend for insects and not the animals. So there is no point in asking the question about setting woodland as wildlife refuge.
Caution: I used to make mistake by going an extra mile i.e cause of cause. but this is not a good idea for CRs. Learned this lesson after making tons of mistakes.
_________________
SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
ps_dahiya wrote: B it is.
B. You got it? The data given may or may not be respresentative. i.e the decrease in the extinction between 1950 and 2000 is because of what reason? This is what you want to evaluate.
Could you please restate your reasoning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
