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

It is currently 16 Oct 2019, 22:26

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

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Posts: 80
Location: India
Schools: LBS MIF '19
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.3
CAT Tests
Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2017, 12:39
3
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (02:28) correct 58% (02:26) wrong based on 393 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty. Such regions often experience an influx of new residents, and a growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions. Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall,
even if such protection harms some older local industries.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist's argument depends?

(A) Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed.

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental
protection.

(C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region.

(D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region's economy to the degree that governmentally mandated protection does.

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 75
Location: India
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2017, 00:23
(A) Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed.

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental
protection.

(C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region.

(D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region's economy to the degree that governmentally mandated protection does.

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region
_________________
Hit kudos if you like my post

Today's preparation determines tomorrow's achievement.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 17 Apr 2016
Posts: 79
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2017, 02:41
rs47 wrote:
Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty. Such regions often experience an influx of new residents, and a growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions. Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall,
even if such protection harms some older local industries.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist's argument depends?

(A) Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed.

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental
protection.

(C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region.

(D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region's economy to the degree that governmentally mandated protection does.

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.



What's the OE? Can anyone explain how E is correct?
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 563
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2017, 02:50
2
Top Contributor
1
try to simplify the argument -

Premise -
Natural beauty --> Influx of new residents --> More businesses.

the conclusion -
government mandated environment regulations --> Overall effect for the economy is positive (even if some local businesses are harmed)

Note that the author says that such regulations have an "overall" positive effect.

Let us look the answer options -

Option A - Incorrect.
this option basically states that such regions will attract new residents only till government regulations are imposed. That means there will not be any new residents after the regulations are imposed.
Weakens the argument.

Option B - Incorrect.
Negate this.
"The economies of most regions of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection."

Even if they disappear, we know that there will more "new" businesses in the area because such regulations protect the environment. So, the "overall" effect on the economies of such areas might be positive.

Option C - Incorrect.
Not necessary. Even if such regulations help the economy through other more important means, this does not harm the conclusion that overall government regulations help the economy.

Option D - Incorrect.
We are not concerned with the effects of voluntary environmental regulations. We are concerned only with the effects that government mandated regulations have

Option E - Correct.
Negate this.
"A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region discourages other businesses from relocating to that region."

We already know that such regulations are harmful to some older industries (the question says "even if such protection harms some older local industries").
Hence, no new businesses. this means that there cannot be any positive overall effect on the economy. Hence, the argument falls apart.
_________________
- CrackVerbal Prep Team

For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal

Register for the Free GMAT Kickstarter Course : http://bit.ly/2DDHKHq

Register for our Personal Tutoring Course : https://www.crackverbal.com/gmat/personal-tutoring/

Join the free 4 part GMAT video training series : http://bit.ly/2DGm8tR
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 341
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2017, 00:55
Okay, if we use negation technique won't C be right?

CONCL: Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall, even if such protection harms some older local industries.
CONCL 2: people moving to an area thus encourages businesses; natural beauty is cited as one of the reasons. ("Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty. Such regions often experience an influx of new residents, and a growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions.")

C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region. - This is what the argument says in the beginning. The harming of older local industries is a fallout.
If we think "no" this mandate won't work, the argument falls apart.


E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region. - Yes, but isn't this an inference or fallout? It has been already established if new businesses occur in a beautiful place, it would increase overall economy - but this happens BECAUSE people move there.

Would really appreciate if E was shown as an assumption and not a fallout ! Thank you :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 468
Location: India
Schools: XLRI"20
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.5
Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2017, 04:17
Answer should be E.

close between B and E.

B. Negating B, argument does not fall apart, as the argument clearly says "Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall,
even if such protection harms some older local industries. ". So economy will still grow from new industries.

E. Negating E, argument falls apart, factor will discourage new business to get into the region and economy will not grow. Hence E

C. actually i think it sort of reverses the premise IMO, argument is seeking to establish => people prefer natural beauty region -> encourages businesses to relocate -> so if, government env protection -> then better economy, but C says government helps economy grow by encouraging more people to move into.

Thanks
Senior PS Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2019, 13:00
Bumping up for review. A great LSAT question.
_________________
Regards,
Gladi



“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Booth Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 293
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2019, 17:15
Ok.IMO B is wrong because of the word “primarily”.The economies could be based “ secondarily” or “ tertiarily” on old industries. It doesnt kill the argument if it is not “primarily”.

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in   [#permalink] 01 Feb 2019, 17:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in

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





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