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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Mar 2014, 21:16
9
12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95% (hard)
Question Stats:
54% (02:26) correct 46% (02:21) wrong based on 607 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to develop an "oasis" glade in the Sonoran Desert. He created a glade that, the developer claims, is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow. In particular, the developer planted several native fruit-bearing plants, such as prickly-pear cactus. Once the glade was established, a number of desert birds and mammals would regularly inhabit the glade, often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:
A. the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. B. most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. C. a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals D. enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. E. the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Mar 2014, 02:50
2
I like this question, as the answers made me smile.
A. Correct. The claim is 'the created glade is lush and plant-filled as the ambient allows 35° C temperatures' and the presence of the desert animals is not evidence for this claim. B. We don't have information that prove this would be true. I believe the animals would find a way to survive without the artificial glade. C. Just like B, no information provided to prove this. And I think that the shade and water would attract animals anyway, even without fruits. D. Just like B and C. How do we know how much the glade's development costs? And how much the fruit sales are? E. Just like B, C and D, no information about this statement is provided.
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Mar 2014, 03:03
1
Here is the OE:
The credited answer is (A). It's unclear exactly what the developer's claim might be ---- probably something along the lines of: "it's possible to build an oasis in the Sonoran Desert." Certainly, the developer demonstrated that building an oasis there was possible, and in a way, his success is a kind of claim. It's absolutely true that the fact that animals come in and eat fruit off the ground does not challenge his claim in any way.
Would those animals have perished if the glade wasn't there? Maybe, maybe not. Desert animals, by definition, survive in the desert: by their nature, are crafty, able to take the measures necessary to survive in such a harsh environment. We have no clear ground to conclude choice (B), so it is incorrect.
The animals that come to the glade eat the fallen fruit, but is that the only reason why they come? Do they also enjoy the shade? the relative moisture? We don't know, but we can't be sure that the only reason the animals come is the fruit. Therefore, if there were only fruitless plants, would the animals stop coming? We don't know. Choice (C) is incorrect.
We don't know anything about this fruit. Is it fruit that humans would even eat? If so, would it command enough of a price to come even close to the cost of the glade? We have no idea about how much the glade costs, nor how it was funded, but apparently money from fruit was not a primary concern. Would the fruit cover the cost of the development? Doubtful, but we really have no idea. Choice (D) is incorrect.
There's definitely some shade in the glade. Does this significantly reduce the ambient temperature? Is that how air currents work in a desert? Is such a drop of ambient temperature characteristic of place of shade within the Sonoran Desert? This question implies very technical information --- information we are not expected to know and information not addressed at all in the prompt argument. Choice (E) does not follow from the prompt argument in any straightforward uncomplicated way. Choice (E) is incorrect.
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to develop an "oasis" glade in the Sonoran Desert. He created a glade that, the developer claims, is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow. In particular, the developer planted several native fruit-bearing plants, such as prickly-pear cactus. Once the glade was established, a number of desert birds and mammals would regularly inhabit the glade, often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:
(A) the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer.
(B) most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location.
(C) a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals
(D) enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development.
(E) the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade.
Dear tuanquang269, I'm happy to respond. This is one of my questions, one that I wrote.
(A) the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. Well, we don't know what the developer's claim might be. It does seems as if, as soon as the glade was built, the animals showed up. It's hard to imagine that the developer didn't know that this was going to happen, so it seems plausible to conclude that whatever the developer was trying to do, the presence of the animals was not a problem for him. This answer is plausible.
(B) most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. Hmm. Desert animals are good at staying alive in the desert. The glade might have made things easier for them, but it seems unreasonable to conclude that desert animals can't survive in the desert. This is incorrect.
(C) a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals Hmm. Hard to say. Is the fruit the primary draw for the animals? Or is it simply the shade & moisture? Hard to say. We can't definitively conclude this. This is incorrect.
(D) enclosing the fruit–bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. Hmm. How much money would we make from the fruit? This is unclear. To cover the cost of the glade's development would be a lot of fruit! We have no idea what the dollar amounts here are, or whether they would be compatible. This is incorrect.
(E) the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade. Hmm. It's plausible that the shade anywhere is slightly cooler, but does this reduce the "ambient temperature within the glade" --- that is, even if I am standing in full sun, inside the glade, I'll be cooler than if I were in full sun outside of the glade? This is unclear. We can't draw any firm conclusions, so this is incorrect.
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Apr 2016, 05:12
2
2
And the most convoluted answer choice wins
To start with, i did not have any idea whatsoever, about what the question stem meant. It was only the tag that told me it was asking for 'Inference'. Could someone please decipher the question stem and explain how can one infer that it's referring to inference!
Here's my analysis:
A. the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. Claim of the developer: "The glad is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow" Evidence: Presence of desert animals. Clearly, the presence of desert animals does not go against the claim made by the developer. Moreover, the glad has got several native fruit-bearing plants, naturally, desert animals are gonna be there. Therefore, if at all this evidence does anything, it supports the claim, forget about going against it.
B. most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. This is a biiig leap of faith. We dont have any evidence that proves this. In fact, we are sure that the animals were 'alive' before the glad, so they should be just better off without it too.
C. a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals This one is tricky! The argument says "...a number of... , often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.". This tells us that there were at least some animals that eat fruits. The only problem I see with C is the extreme degree 'significantly fewer'. This cant be warranted. This choice would have been correct if it said something like '...would not attract at least a few desert animals'
D. enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. What sales!! Why would we care about money if the developer himself didnt. Completely irrelevant.
E. the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade It could be true but we dont know. Even if we knew that yes the temperature did reduce, was it measurable? Dunno
_________________
One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 294
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Apr 2016, 05:40
arhumsid wrote:
And the most convoluted answer choice wins
To start with, i did not have any idea whatsoever, about what the question stem meant. It was only the tag that told me it was asking for 'Inference'. Could someone please decipher the question stem and explain how can one infer that it's referring to inference!
Here's my analysis:
A. the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. Claim of the developer: "The glad is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow" Evidence: Presence of desert animals. Clearly, the presence of desert animals does not go against the claim made by the developer. Moreover, the glad has got several native fruit-bearing plants, naturally, desert animals are gonna be there. Therefore, if at all this evidence does anything, it supports the claim, forget about going against it.
B. most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. This is a biiig leap of faith. We dont have any evidence that proves this. In fact, we are sure that the animals were 'alive' before the glad, so they should be just better off without it too.
C. a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals This one is tricky! The argument says "...a number of... , often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.". This tells us that there were at least some animals that eat fruits. The only problem I see with C is the extreme degree 'significantly fewer'. This cant be warranted. This choice would have been correct if it said something like '...would not attract at least a few desert animals'
D. enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. What sales!! Why would we care about money if the developer himself didnt. Completely irrelevant.
E. the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade It could be true but we dont know. Even if we knew that yes the temperature did reduce, was it measurable? Dunno
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Apr 2016, 06:07
smartguy595 wrote:
arhumsid wrote:
And the most convoluted answer choice wins
To start with, i did not have any idea whatsoever, about what the question stem meant. It was only the tag that told me it was asking for 'Inference'. Could someone please decipher the question stem and explain how can one infer that it's referring to inference!
Here's my analysis:
A. the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. Claim of the developer: "The glad is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow" Evidence: Presence of desert animals. Clearly, the presence of desert animals does not go against the claim made by the developer. Moreover, the glad has got several native fruit-bearing plants, naturally, desert animals are gonna be there. Therefore, if at all this evidence does anything, it supports the claim, forget about going against it.
B. most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. This is a biiig leap of faith. We dont have any evidence that proves this. In fact, we are sure that the animals were 'alive' before the glad, so they should be just better off without it too.
C. a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals This one is tricky! The argument says "...a number of... , often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.". This tells us that there were at least some animals that eat fruits. The only problem I see with C is the extreme degree 'significantly fewer'. This cant be warranted. This choice would have been correct if it said something like '...would not attract at least a few desert animals'
D. enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. What sales!! Why would we care about money if the developer himself didnt. Completely irrelevant.
E. the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade It could be true but we dont know. Even if we knew that yes the temperature did reduce, was it measurable? Dunno
You are welcome! and Thanks for the Kudos! I'm happy to know that it made sense
But i still dont have the answer to your question about the question stem. Let some noble soul explain the question stem to us _________________
One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Apr 2016, 07:09
1
smartguy595 wrote:
mba1382 wrote:
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to develop an "oasis" glade in the Sonoran Desert. He created a glade that, the developer claims, is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow. In particular, the developer planted several native fruit-bearing plants, such as prickly-pear cactus. Once the glade was established, a number of desert birds and mammals would regularly inhabit the glade, often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:
A. the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. B. most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. C. a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals D. enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. E. the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade
Really good question.
I did not understand the Question stem..Can someone explain what the question stem asking us to do!
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:
Here considerations refers to the question stimulus or paragraph before the question stem. So question stem says that "stimulus best serve as part of an argument that.. ". So what follows "that" is the argument or conclusion. So this is an inference/conclusion type of question.
_________________
Consider KUDOS if my post helped
I got the eye of the tiger, a fighter, dancing through the fire 'Cause I am a champion and you're gonna hear me roar
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 May 2017, 08:56
mikemcgarry wrote:
tuanquang269 wrote:
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to develop an "oasis" glade in the Sonoran Desert. He created a glade that, the developer claims, is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow. In particular, the developer planted several native fruit-bearing plants, such as prickly-pear cactus. Once the glade was established, a number of desert birds and mammals would regularly inhabit the glade, often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:
(A) the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer.
(B) most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location.
(C) a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals
(D) enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development.
(E) the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade.
Dear tuanquang269, I'm happy to respond. This is one of my questions, one that I wrote.
(A) the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. Well, we don't know what the developer's claim might be. It does seems as if, as soon as the glade was built, the animals showed up. It's hard to imagine that the developer didn't know that this was going to happen, so it seems plausible to conclude that whatever the developer was trying to do, the presence of the animals was not a problem for him. This answer is plausible.
(B) most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. Hmm. Desert animals are good at staying alive in the desert. The glade might have made things easier for them, but it seems unreasonable to conclude that desert animals can't survive in the desert. This is incorrect.
(C) a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals Hmm. Hard to say. Is the fruit the primary draw for the animals? Or is it simply the shade & moisture? Hard to say. We can't definitively conclude this. This is incorrect.
(D) enclosing the fruit–bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. Hmm. How much money would we make from the fruit? This is unclear. To cover the cost of the glade's development would be a lot of fruit! We have no idea what the dollar amounts here are, or whether they would be compatible. This is incorrect.
(E) the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade. Hmm. It's plausible that the shade anywhere is slightly cooler, but does this reduce the "ambient temperature within the glade" --- that is, even if I am standing in full sun, inside the glade, I'll be cooler than if I were in full sun outside of the glade? This is unclear. We can't draw any firm conclusions, so this is incorrect.
The only possible answer is (A).
Mike
This is a very unique Question Stem. Would you please explain it a little??
I picked A in 2:55, thinking what kind of conversation/argument would bring up the above mentioned lines; however, it does not look like your explanation is going in that direction.. One more thing - Right Answer is Strengthening the Developer's Claim and (passively) weakening the Writer's Claim. Is that related to the question stem in any way?
_________________
I'd appreciate learning about the grammatical errors in my posts
Please hit Kudos If my Solution helps
My Debrief for 750 - https://gmatclub.com/forum/from-720-to-750-one-of-the-most-difficult-pleatues-to-overcome-246420.html
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 May 2017, 11:33
umg wrote:
This is a very unique Question Stem. Would you please explain it a little??
I picked A in 2:55, thinking what kind of conversation/argument would bring up the above mentioned lines; however, it does not look like your explanation is going in that direction.. One more thing - Right Answer is Strengthening the Developer's Claim and (passively) weakening the Writer's Claim. Is that related to the question stem in any way?
Yes, you're correct: this question stem is infrequently seen. The basic idea is that the prompt paragraph contains only factual evidence, observations, but makes absolutely no argument. The prompt paragraph is evidence in search of an argument to support.
Then the question stem says: "The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:" In other words, the information given in the paragraph is evidence. This evidence could be used to support what argument? What argument is best supported by this evidence?
I will say that this is a very hard question. In some sense, it might be a little closer to an LSAT Logical Reasoning question than a GMAT Critical Reasoning question. I guess in a way we could say that we are "strengthening" the developer's claim, de facto, but I don't think we are weakening the writer's claim--the writer doesn't really make any claims. These details are absolutely unrelated to the structure of the prompt question.
Yes, you're correct: this question stem is infrequently seen. The basic idea is that the prompt paragraph contains only factual evidence, observations, but makes absolutely no argument. The prompt paragraph is evidence in search of an argument to support.
Then the question stem says: "The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:" In other words, the information given in the paragraph is evidence. This evidence could be used to support what argument? What argument is best supported by this evidence?
I will say that this is a very hard question. In some sense, it might be a little closer to an LSAT Logical Reasoning question than a GMAT Critical Reasoning question. I guess in a way we could say that we are "strengthening" the developer's claim, de facto, but I don't think we are weakening the writer's claim--the writer doesn't really make any claims. These details are absolutely unrelated to the structure of the prompt question.
Does all this make sense? Mike
Hmm.. I really thought that the last line of the stimulus presents a view. Most probably because of the presence of the word would.
Once the glade was established, a number of desert birds and mammals would regularly inhabit the glade, often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.
My Bad. On a different note, I think this last sentence would also make a good SC question..
_________________
I'd appreciate learning about the grammatical errors in my posts
Please hit Kudos If my Solution helps
My Debrief for 750 - https://gmatclub.com/forum/from-720-to-750-one-of-the-most-difficult-pleatues-to-overcome-246420.html
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jul 2017, 12:33
1
mba1382 wrote:
Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to develop an "oasis" glade in the Sonoran Desert. He created a glade that, the developer claims, is as lush and plant-filled as the ambient 35° C temperatures allow. In particular, the developer planted several native fruit-bearing plants, such as prickly-pear cactus. Once the glade was established, a number of desert birds and mammals would regularly inhabit the glade, often eating most of the fruit that falls from the plants.
The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that:
A. the presence of the desert animals in the glade do not serve as evidence against the claim of the developer. B. most of these desert animals in the glade would have perished if the glade had not been created in that location. C. a glade populated exclusively with non-fruit bearing plants would attract significantly fewer desert animals D. enclosing the fruit –bearing plants in wire cages to prevent consumption by desert animals would allow for fruit sales to cover the cost of the glade's development. E. the shade from all the plants in the glade measurably reduces the ambient temperature within the glade
Really good question.
Dev. created an oasis. Dev. claims oasis is as lush and plant as the temperatures allow. Dev. planted fruit bearing plants that several birds and animals inhabiting the oasis feed on.
A - Dev. claims that he has successfully built an oasis, and the animal presence at the oasis does not serve as evidence that contradicts that claim. KEEP. B - We cannot infer this from the given information. OUT. C - Again, we cannot infer this from the given information. OUT. D - Fruit sales, and recovering costs isn't part of this argument. OUT. E - We have no information to support this. OUT.
Re: Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Aug 2018, 17:19
Official Explanation
The credited answer is (A). It's unclear exactly what the developer's claim might be ---- probably something along the lines of: "it's possible to build an oasis in the Sonoran Desert." Certainly, the developer demonstrated that building an oasis there was possible, and in a way, his success is a kind of claim. It's absolutely true that the fact that animals come in and eat fruit off the ground does not challenge his claim in any way.
Would those animals have perished if the glade wasn't there? Maybe, maybe not. Desert animals, by definition, survive in the desert: by their nature, are crafty, able to take the measures necessary to survive in such a harsh environment. We have no clear ground to conclude choice (B), so it is incorrect.
The animals that come to the glade eat the fallen fruit, but is that the only reason why they come? Do they also enjoy the shade? the relative moisture? We don't know, but we can't be sure that the only reason the animals come is the fruit. Therefore, if there were only fruitless plants, would the animals stop coming? We don't know. Choice (C) is incorrect.
We don't know anything about this fruit. Is it fruit that humans would even eat? If so, would it command enough of a price to come even close to the cost of the glade? We have no idea about how much the glade costs, nor how it was funded, but apparently money from fruit was not a primary concern. Would the fruit cover the cost of the development? Doubtful, but we really have no idea. Choice (D) is incorrect.
There's definitely some shade in the glade. Does this significantly reduce the ambient temperature? Is that how air currents work in a desert? Is such a drop of ambient temperature characteristic of place of shade within the Sonoran Desert? This question implies very technical information --- information we are not expected to know and information not addressed at all in the prompt argument. Choice (E) does not follow from the prompt argument in any straightforward uncomplicated way. Choice (E) is incorrect.
_________________
Thanks! Do give some kudos.
Simple strategy: “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
close
54% (02:26) correct 
