GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Jun 2018, 00:26

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

7 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 391
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Haas EWMBA '17
Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 00:39
7
12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (01:39) correct 64% (01:38) wrong based on 529 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Tests the concept of Sufficient -> Necessary conditions]

_________________

Thanks,
Prashant Ponde

Tough 700+ Level RCs: Passage1 | Passage2 | Passage3 | Passage4 | Passage5 | Passage6 | Passage7
Reading Comprehension notes: Click here
VOTE GMAT Practice Tests: Vote Here
PowerScore CR Bible - Official Guide 13 Questions Set Mapped: Click here
Looking to finance your tuition: Click here

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 36
GMAT 1: 480 Q48 V9
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 03:39
Why not 'C' be the answer. I hope it will be better if we get a full explanation.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 108
Location: India
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 04:00
I went with D....an official explanation will be highly appreciated..
4 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 391
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Haas EWMBA '17
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 08:55
4
1
OE: In the first sentence the ecologist claims that without the intervention of conservationists, the squirrel monkeys will become extinct. In other words, the conservationists’ intervention is required for the squirrel monkeys’ survival. This statement yields the following translation: IF squirrel monkeys survive -> conservationists intervene. Likewise, the contrapositive states that IF NO conservationists’ intervention -> squirrel monkeys extinct. Then the ecologist gives us a condition under which the squirrel monkeys will survive: IF large tracts of habitat preserved -> squirrel monkeys survive. The contrapositive then translates as IF squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of habitat NOT preserved. The last sentence is just filler and is of no consequence to the logic of the argument. Stay focused on how the first two statements can be connected through common terms as you evaluate each answer choice for a statement that must be true.

(A) The ecologist only discusses the habitat in question. The food supply or lack thereof in other habitats is outside the scope and the ecologist does not provide enough information to know that this must be true.
(B) This need not necessarily be true. The preservation of the large tract of habitat is one way to ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys. There could be a whole host of other ways that the inter vening conservationists can save the squirrel monkeys that the ecologist never discusses.
(C) The ecologist states that squirrel monkeys flourish when a plentiful supply of insects and fruit is available. The ecologist never states that the squirrel monkeys would die off without this food supply. Choice (C) is going too far.
(D) This answer reverses the logic of the first statement. If the squirrel monkeys survive, it is because the conservationists have intervened. The ecologist never states that intervention alone will guarantee their existence. In fact, the second statement provides an unrelated condition—the preservation of the habitat—that will ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys.
(E) This answer must be correct since the other four are demonstrably wrong. This answer emphasizes the connection between the two formal logic statements, but in the form of the contrapositive. IF conser vationists’ do NOT intervene -> squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of land NOT preserved. Choice (E) is correct and properly removes the common term of “squirrel monkeys extinct” in the contrapositive.
_________________

Thanks,
Prashant Ponde

Tough 700+ Level RCs: Passage1 | Passage2 | Passage3 | Passage4 | Passage5 | Passage6 | Passage7
Reading Comprehension notes: Click here
VOTE GMAT Practice Tests: Vote Here
PowerScore CR Bible - Official Guide 13 Questions Set Mapped: Click here
Looking to finance your tuition: Click here

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3421
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 09:47
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 ;)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 391
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Haas EWMBA '17
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 09:50
carcass wrote:
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 ;)


Carcass, which part of the question you disagree with?
_________________

Thanks,
Prashant Ponde

Tough 700+ Level RCs: Passage1 | Passage2 | Passage3 | Passage4 | Passage5 | Passage6 | Passage7
Reading Comprehension notes: Click here
VOTE GMAT Practice Tests: Vote Here
PowerScore CR Bible - Official Guide 13 Questions Set Mapped: Click here
Looking to finance your tuition: Click here

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Posts: 9
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 10:15
soumyaranjandash wrote:
Why not 'C' be the answer. I hope it will be better if we get a full explanation.


I went with E. I ruled out C as the premise says that the squirrel monkeys will flourish with plentiful supply of fruit, etc. Survival is different from thriving.

Coming to why I chose E, it is the answer that links two premises. So, I felt that it was the strongest conclusion and hence chose it.
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3421
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 10:27
PraPon wrote:
carcass wrote:
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 ;)


Carcass, which part of the question you disagree with?



Hi dude :)

Without the intervention of conservationists. Infer is always something that is completely unstated in the stimulus. As such, infer is just something that you "can" read among the lines of the stimulus.
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 10
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 12:24
PraPon wrote:
OE: In the first sentence the ecologist claims that without the intervention of conservationists, the squirrel monkeys will become extinct. In other words, the conservationists’ intervention is required for the squirrel monkeys’ survival. This statement yields the following translation: IF squirrel monkeys survive -> conservationists intervene. Likewise, the contrapositive states that IF NO conservationists’ intervention -> squirrel monkeys extinct. Then the ecologist gives us a condition under which the squirrel monkeys will survive: IF large tracts of habitat preserved -> squirrel monkeys survive. The contrapositive then translates as IF squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of habitat NOT preserved. The last sentence is just filler and is of no consequence to the logic of the argument. Stay focused on how the first two statements can be connected through common terms as you evaluate each answer choice for a statement that must be true.

(A) The ecologist only discusses the habitat in question. The food supply or lack thereof in other habitats is outside the scope and the ecologist does not provide enough information to know that this must be true.
(B) This need not necessarily be true. The preservation of the large tract of habitat is one way to ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys. There could be a whole host of other ways that the inter vening conservationists can save the squirrel monkeys that the ecologist never discusses.
(C) The ecologist states that squirrel monkeys flourish when a plentiful supply of insects and fruit is available. The ecologist never states that the squirrel monkeys would die off without this food supply. Choice (C) is going too far.
(D) This answer reverses the logic of the first statement. If the squirrel monkeys survive, it is because the conservationists have intervened. The ecologist never states that intervention alone will guarantee their existence. In fact, the second statement provides an unrelated condition—the preservation of the habitat—that will ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys.
(E) This answer must be correct since the other four are demonstrably wrong. This answer emphasizes the connection between the two formal logic statements, but in the form of the contrapositive. IF conser vationists’ do NOT intervene -> squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of land NOT preserved. Choice (E) is correct and properly removes the common term of “squirrel monkeys extinct” in the contrapositive.



hi i do not agree with the logic for choosing E.It seems like you are trying to justify the answer after it was known. Its not essential that if squirrel monkeys extinct the large tracts of land won't be preserved.the tracts might be preserved for breeding other animals we never know. C and d seems rather relevant...
Expert Post
7 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2013, 21:35
7
3
PraPon wrote:
[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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 391
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Haas EWMBA '17
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2013, 08:58
1
carcass wrote:
PraPon wrote:
carcass wrote:
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 ;)


Carcass, which part of the question you disagree with?



Hi dude :)

Without the intervention of conservationists. Infer is always something that is completely unstated in the stimulus. As such, infer is just something that you "can" read among the lines of the stimulus.


Hello Carcass, we may not always find infer question choices as something new or completely unstated in the stimulus. Sometimes the infer questions may have multiple premises stated separately and will ask you to establish the relationship in answer choices. The choices may also re-state some of the content from the premises, but correct choice will reflect appropriate relationship. Another example - cause & effect infer questions.

Above specific question stresses a lot on understanding and defining the conditional relationship among few circumstances: Sufficient -> Necessary. Some of the tricky answer choices in this question may look correct but they incorrectly show reversed relationship Necessary -> Sufficient, which cant guaranteed to be true. Hence eliminate. Choice (E) rightly establishes the conditions.
_________________

Thanks,
Prashant Ponde

Tough 700+ Level RCs: Passage1 | Passage2 | Passage3 | Passage4 | Passage5 | Passage6 | Passage7
Reading Comprehension notes: Click here
VOTE GMAT Practice Tests: Vote Here
PowerScore CR Bible - Official Guide 13 Questions Set Mapped: Click here
Looking to finance your tuition: Click here

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 391
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Haas EWMBA '17
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2013, 10:30
PraPon wrote:
carcass wrote:
PraPon wrote:

Carcass, which part of the question you disagree with?



Hi dude :)

Without the intervention of conservationists. Infer is always something that is completely unstated in the stimulus. As such, infer is just something that you "can" read among the lines of the stimulus.


Hello Carcass, we may not always find infer question choices as something new or completely unstated in the stimulus. Sometimes the infer questions may have multiple premises stated separately and will ask you to establish the relationship in answer choices. The choices may also re-state some of the content from the premises, but correct choice will reflect appropriate relationship. Another example - cause & effect infer questions.

Above specific question stresses a lot on understanding and defining the conditional relationship among few circumstances: Sufficient -> Necessary. Some of the tricky answer choices in this question may look correct but they incorrectly show reversed relationship Necessary -> Sufficient, which cant guaranteed to be true. Hence eliminate. Choice (E) rightly establishes the conditions.


Just posted another classic question of similar type that involves relationship between conditions:
therapist-the-ability-to-trust-other-people-is-essential-to-147951.html
_________________

Thanks,
Prashant Ponde

Tough 700+ Level RCs: Passage1 | Passage2 | Passage3 | Passage4 | Passage5 | Passage6 | Passage7
Reading Comprehension notes: Click here
VOTE GMAT Practice Tests: Vote Here
PowerScore CR Bible - Official Guide 13 Questions Set Mapped: Click here
Looking to finance your tuition: Click here

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3421
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2013, 13:31
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 14
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Feb 2013, 07:08
1
hi guys this is how you solve it logically

C = Intervention by conservationists;
S = Squirrel monkeys will survive
F = Large Tracts of second hand forests are preserved

-C → -S, ∶ First Premise

F → S, -S→-F (Modus tollens) ∶ Second Premise

Therefore combining the two logical statements we have

-C → -S, -S → -F by rule of syllogism gives

-C →-F : Possible Conclusion

if no Intervention by conservationists then no Large Tracts of second hand forests are preserved
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Posts: 69
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2016, 21:40
PrashantPonde wrote:
OE: In the first sentence the ecologist claims that without the intervention of conservationists, the squirrel monkeys will become extinct. In other words, the conservationists’ intervention is required for the squirrel monkeys’ survival. This statement yields the following translation: IF squirrel monkeys survive -> conservationists intervene. Likewise, the contrapositive states that IF NO conservationists’ intervention -> squirrel monkeys extinct. Then the ecologist gives us a condition under which the squirrel monkeys will survive: IF large tracts of habitat preserved -> squirrel monkeys survive. The contrapositive then translates as IF squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of habitat NOT preserved. The last sentence is just filler and is of no consequence to the logic of the argument. Stay focused on how the first two statements can be connected through common terms as you evaluate each answer choice for a statement that must be true.

(A) The ecologist only discusses the habitat in question. The food supply or lack thereof in other habitats is outside the scope and the ecologist does not provide enough information to know that this must be true.
(B) This need not necessarily be true. The preservation of the large tract of habitat is one way to ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys. There could be a whole host of other ways that the inter vening conservationists can save the squirrel monkeys that the ecologist never discusses.
(C) The ecologist states that squirrel monkeys flourish when a plentiful supply of insects and fruit is available. The ecologist never states that the squirrel monkeys would die off without this food supply. Choice (C) is going too far.
(D) This answer reverses the logic of the first statement. If the squirrel monkeys survive, it is because the conservationists have intervened. The ecologist never states that intervention alone will guarantee their existence. In fact, the second statement provides an unrelated condition—the preservation of the habitat—that will ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys.
(E) This answer must be correct since the other four are demonstrably wrong. This answer emphasizes the connection between the two formal logic statements, but in the form of the contrapositive. IF conser vationists’ do NOT intervene -> squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of land NOT preserved. Choice (E) is correct and properly removes the common term of “squirrel monkeys extinct” in the contrapositive.


I highly doubt your reasoning for going with E. E cannot be a must true situation as there might be a different group of people other than conservationists, who might be interested in developing the habitat for some other purpose.
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2016, 00:00
RK84 wrote:
PrashantPonde wrote:
OE: In the first sentence the ecologist claims that without the intervention of conservationists, the squirrel monkeys will become extinct. In other words, the conservationists’ intervention is required for the squirrel monkeys’ survival. This statement yields the following translation: IF squirrel monkeys survive -> conservationists intervene. Likewise, the contrapositive states that IF NO conservationists’ intervention -> squirrel monkeys extinct. Then the ecologist gives us a condition under which the squirrel monkeys will survive: IF large tracts of habitat preserved -> squirrel monkeys survive. The contrapositive then translates as IF squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of habitat NOT preserved. The last sentence is just filler and is of no consequence to the logic of the argument. Stay focused on how the first two statements can be connected through common terms as you evaluate each answer choice for a statement that must be true.

(A) The ecologist only discusses the habitat in question. The food supply or lack thereof in other habitats is outside the scope and the ecologist does not provide enough information to know that this must be true.
(B) This need not necessarily be true. The preservation of the large tract of habitat is one way to ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys. There could be a whole host of other ways that the inter vening conservationists can save the squirrel monkeys that the ecologist never discusses.
(C) The ecologist states that squirrel monkeys flourish when a plentiful supply of insects and fruit is available. The ecologist never states that the squirrel monkeys would die off without this food supply. Choice (C) is going too far.
(D) This answer reverses the logic of the first statement. If the squirrel monkeys survive, it is because the conservationists have intervened. The ecologist never states that intervention alone will guarantee their existence. In fact, the second statement provides an unrelated condition—the preservation of the habitat—that will ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys.
(E) This answer must be correct since the other four are demonstrably wrong. This answer emphasizes the connection between the two formal logic statements, but in the form of the contrapositive. IF conser vationists’ do NOT intervene -> squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of land NOT preserved. Choice (E) is correct and properly removes the common term of “squirrel monkeys extinct” in the contrapositive.


I highly doubt your reasoning for going with E. E cannot be a must true situation as there might be a different group of people other than conservationists, who might be interested in developing the habitat for some other purpose.


In logic, you have to focus on the structure, not on the content.
The argument tells you
A - conservationists intervene.
B - large tracts of second-growth forest habitat preserved for monkeys
C - monkeys survive

Given:

- If conservationists don't intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
If not A, then not C.
So 'not A' implies 'not C'.

- They will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them.
If B, then C.
So B implies C and 'not C' implies 'not B'


Option (E) says "Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys."
If not A, then not B.

'not A' implies 'not C' which in turn implies 'not B'. So 'not A' implies 'not B'. That is what your option (E) says. Hence, it must be true.

These are your basics of logic and conditionals. Check them out here:
http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/11 ... tatements/
http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/12 ... tatements/
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 605
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2017, 19:53
!Extinct --> Inter.
LargeTraits ---> !Extinct.

=> Answer is E -> LargeTraits = > Intervation. :)
Conditional Reasoning.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 25
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2017, 00:16
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
PraPon wrote:
[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.


Karishma - Thanks for this, just wanted to clarify a point in order to make sure I'm understanding correctly. It seems like the difference between "B" and "E" is that "B" states the some conservationists will be directly preserving second-growth habitats, while "E" states that the result of conservationist intervention is that second growth forests will be preserved, not necessarily that conservationists will be themselves directly preserving the forests. So had "B" made an indirect link between some conservationist efforts and preservation of second growth forests, then "B" would have been a viable answer as well?
Re: Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists   [#permalink] 19 May 2017, 00:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.