Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 19:51 It is currently 21 May 2024, 19:51
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93373
Own Kudos [?]: 625657 [4]
Given Kudos: 81918
Send PM
Director
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 732
Own Kudos [?]: 333 [1]
Given Kudos: 477
Send PM
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Mar 2024
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Sep 2020
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 76 [2]
Given Kudos: 162
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Focus 1:
575 Q79 V79 DI77
GMAT 1: 460 Q36 V18 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
Re: Climatologist: Global warming is affecting snowfall throughout the [#permalink]
2
Kudos
IMO - D

POE

(A) The percentages he cites will continue to decrease at a linear rate. - Even if it does not continue to decrease linearly still does not affect the conclusion - Eliminate

(B) Global warming will cease to be a factor in the state’s snowfall yields over the next 20-30 years. - Irrelevant to the conclusion-Eliminate

(C) Global warming is not the only factor affecting the state’s snowfall yields over the past decade. - Conclusion is about the global warming only any alternative plan is straight away weakener for the assumption question. - Eliminate

(D) The amount of precipitation in the state in 2009 was not significantly greater than it had been in 2004. - Correct

(E) The volume of rainfall, the other primary form of precipitation in the state, was not higher in 2004 than it was in 2009. - We are only concerned with the snow in the question. - Eliminate
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2022
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [3]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Climatologist: Global warming is affecting snowfall throughout the [#permalink]
3
Bookmarks
TusharPal30 wrote:
In my opinion, the answer should be A, the author has taken 2 year data, (2004 and 2009) and calculated rate at which the precipitation is decreasing, he further says if it continues "At this rate" which means he is taking into assumption that the rate at which the snowfall precipitation will decrease will not change.

Please correct me if I am wrong

­Percentage decrease doesn't always mean that the overall value is decreasing.

For "At this rate" trend to be true, the absolute value of snow precipitation in 2009 should be less than in 2004, otherwise it will break the conclusion. For example, let's say there was 100mm precipitation overall in 2004. This means 60% or 60mm was in the form of snow. Now, for 2009, let's consider two cases of precipitation: 1) 150mm and 2) 75mm. In the 1st case, 42% precipitation was in snow form, which is equal to 63mm. This is greater than 60mm snow precipitation in 2004, meaning that the author's conclusion about possible no snowfall in the next 20-30 years doesn't hold true. However, in the 2nd case, snow precipitation would be ~32mm, less than in 2004. Therefore, in order to not break author's conclusion, the 2009 snow precipitation should not be significantly greater than in 2004.

Hope this is clear.­
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93373
Own Kudos [?]: 625657 [0]
Given Kudos: 81918
Send PM
Re: Climatologist: Global warming is affecting snowfall throughout the [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Bunuel wrote:
­Climatologist: Global warming is affecting snowfall throughout the state. In 2004, nearly 60% of all precipitation in our state was in the form of snow, whereas by 2009 that percentage had dropped to just 42%. At this rate, in 20-30 years the state may have no snow at all.

The climatologist’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) The percentages he cites will continue to decrease at a linear rate.

(B) Global warming will cease to be a factor in the state’s snowfall yields over the next 20-30 years.

(C) Global warming is not the only factor affecting the state’s snowfall yields over the past decade.

(D) The amount of precipitation in the state in 2009 was not significantly greater than it had been in 2004.

(E) The volume of rainfall, the other primary form of precipitation in the state, was not higher in 2004 than it was in 2009.


­
This is a CR Butler Question

    Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
­

­

Veritas Prep Official Explanation



D.

This question tests a data flaw that occurs commonly throughout the GMAT – just because the percentage that snow constitutes of the total precipitation has gone down DOES NOT mean that the actual volume of snowfall has gone down.

If overall precipitation has doubled, for example, then snowfall has gone up, from 60/100 to 84/200. D exposes this flaw – if you negate D it says “the volume of precipitation in 2009 was significantly greater than it was in 2004”, evidence that the total precipitation could well have dramatically increased.

Note the flaws in trap answers A and E – in A, the continued trend doesn’t need to be linear; in fact if it were exponential that would strengthen the conclusion even further.

And choice E actually does the opposite of D – if negated, E says “there was more rainfall in 2004 than in 2009”, showing that overall precipitation (and therefore snowfall) was way down in 2009.­
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Climatologist: Global warming is affecting snowfall throughout the [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts