Forty miles to the west of Tucson, a developer attempted to

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.

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

Dear arhumsid,

Many many thanks for the detailed explanation

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

smartguy595
Question stem:

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.

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?

Dear umg,

I'm happy to respond.

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..

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.

A is the answer.

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.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.