Last visit was: 01 May 2026, 21:07

It is currently 01 May 2026, 21:07

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists

1 2

shrgmat

Joined: 11 Nov 2020

Last visit: 25 Dec 2021

Posts: 37

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 82

Posts: 37

Kudos: 18

09 Apr 2021, 12:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

VeritasKarishma

PraPon

[Tests the concept of Sufficient -> Necessary conditions]

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. But they will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of their favorite insects and fruit.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the ecologist’s statements?
(A) No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.
(B) At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.
(C) Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
(D) If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.
(E) Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.

PS: Let me know if you need OE.

Let's analyze this question.

Argument:

- If conservationists don't intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
- They will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them.
- Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of insects and fruit.

Question: Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the ecologist’s statements? i.e. which one of the following can be concluded i.e. which one must be true?

(A) No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.
Not given. All we know is that is that second growth forest contains insects and fruit. We don't if another habitat has insects and fruit too.

(B) At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.
Not given. We can't say how the conservationists WILL intervene. The argument only tells us one way in which they COULD to save the monkeys.

(C) Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
Not given. We know that they flourish when there is plentiful supply of insects and fruit. We do not know whether or not they can survive on something else.

(D) If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.
If conservationists do not intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. If they do intervene, we don't know how they will do so. The argument only gives you one method of how they could save the monkey. We don't know whether they will use this method so we can't say that they will be successful in helping them survive.
Same logic as (B).

(E) Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.
True according to the argument. The argument clearly says two things: Monkeys will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. If conservationists don't intervene, monkeys will not survive. They are premises and must be taken to be true. They imply that if conservationists don't intervene, large tracts of second-growth forest will not be preserved for the monkeys. (mind you, they could be preserved for some other animals, but not for the monkeys). If second growth forests could be preserved for these monkeys without conservationists' intervention, then we cannot say that 'If conservationists don't intervene, monkeys will not survive.'

Also note that all we are saying is that if conservationists DON'T intervene, forests will certainly NOT be preserved for the monkeys. We are not saying that if the conservationists DO intervene, then second growth forests WILL be preserved for them. Hence, it is consistent with the logic of (B).

Option (E) is correct.

Sorry, I don't see the link at all between the 2nd growth forest and conservationists (first sentence - conclusion).
Saying Monkeys will survive with the 2nd growth forest, doesn't mean that as the ONLY way they survive. Where in the argument does it indicate that 2nd growth forest is required at all?

There can be multiple ways by which monkeys can survive but chances can be higher with 2nd growth forest. How is intervention linked to 2nd growth forest at all? The word "but" at the beginning of the 2nd sentence, forces you to "build a relationship" between intervention and forest. Therefore, I chose B - which is a "weak relationship" at best.

shrgmat

Joined: 11 Nov 2020

Last visit: 25 Dec 2021

Posts: 37

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 82

Posts: 37

Kudos: 18

10 Apr 2021, 15:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

carcass

This time i disagree on this question. Not on the OA but rather on the question itself.

rarely I saw a must true question that basically repeats the same words of the stimulus.

I agree to train with LSAT questions that are pretty good and tough but not always.

Sometimes ago thare was a PDF from aristotle prep (for free on their website) with a collection of lsat questions suitable for the gmat purpose.

Now is not already available. But I saved it on my pc.If you are interested and you haven't it let me know. I upload it

Yes, absolutely horrible question. When you know the answer you can justify with whatever explanation - as almost everyone does in this thread (they all know it is E, so "find reasons" to justify it is E)! Where in the argument does the question say that preserving 2nd growth forest is the ONLY way conservationists can intervene. I have already spent more time on this rubbish qn from LSAT, than it deserves. I prep with LSAT CR by the way.