Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
31 Oct 2023, 14:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
JOSH1967
First, keep in mind that "lengthy period" is pretty vague, and that's useful for an assumption. When an assumption is phrased positively ("X does/will happen"), vagueness makes it more likely to be necessary. If we were more specific ("6 months of uninterrupted rain") it might not be a needed assumption, since we don't know whether rainy years have this trait. However, something that is true of "a lengthy period of rain" is likely to apply to "rainy years."
Now let's look at your use of the negation test. If we read your negation of B as written (lengthy period --> equal or more hard seeds), it destroys the argument. The whole thing relies on the idea that in rainy times, the birds will have to shift to smaller seeds and they won't be able to eat enough. But if there's been no reduction in large seeds, why couldn't they just do what they always do and eat the large seeds? We don't have to worry about whether the rainy seasons are lengthy, because we aren't trying to PROVE or DISPROVE the conclusion using B or its negation. We're just trying to see what needed information is missing from the argument. If some rainy years don't have lengthy periods of rain (is this even possible?), then we're still left wondering why larger seeds would be unavailable. That would just mean there was ANOTHER assumption--that one way or another, in rainy years, large seeds don't grow. But that doesn't affect that B is a missing piece, but as I've said, I think we can safely count a rainy year as constituting or including "a lengthy period of rain."
As to your second point, I'm not quite sure what you mean about the lengthy period being short enough, but we don't need to say that the finches do/don't survive. We simply have to assess whether B is needed for the argument to work. B is addressing whether the rainy period (whatever its length) would actually result in fewer hard seeds. If it does, the argument might still be correct. But if it doesn't, then the argument doesn't make sense. If rainy periods don't reduce the number of hard seeds, then why would the larger finches die off, whether that rainy period is 10 days or 10 years?
First, keep in mind that "lengthy period" is pretty vague, and that's useful for an assumption. When an assumption is phrased positively ("X does/will happen"), vagueness makes it more likely to be necessary. If we were more specific ("6 months of uninterrupted rain") it might not be a needed assumption, since we don't know whether rainy years have this trait. However, something that is true of "a lengthy period of rain" is likely to apply to "rainy years."
Now let's look at your use of the negation test. If we read your negation of B as written (lengthy period --> equal or more hard seeds), it destroys the argument. The whole thing relies on the idea that in rainy times, the birds will have to shift to smaller seeds and they won't be able to eat enough. But if there's been no reduction in large seeds, why couldn't they just do what they always do and eat the large seeds? We don't have to worry about whether the rainy seasons are lengthy, because we aren't trying to PROVE or DISPROVE the conclusion using B or its negation. We're just trying to see what needed information is missing from the argument. If some rainy years don't have lengthy periods of rain (is this even possible?), then we're still left wondering why larger seeds would be unavailable. That would just mean there was ANOTHER assumption--that one way or another, in rainy years, large seeds don't grow. But that doesn't affect that B is a missing piece, but as I've said, I think we can safely count a rainy year as constituting or including "a lengthy period of rain."
As to your second point, I'm not quite sure what you mean about the lengthy period being short enough, but we don't need to say that the finches do/don't survive. We simply have to assess whether B is needed for the argument to work. B is addressing whether the rainy period (whatever its length) would actually result in fewer hard seeds. If it does, the argument might still be correct. But if it doesn't, then the argument doesn't make sense. If rainy periods don't reduce the number of hard seeds, then why would the larger finches die off, whether that rainy period is 10 days or 10 years?
05 Aug 2025, 22:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
I would say this question is 705-805 level.
Moderators:
188 posts
