GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to

IMO OA should be C

Well, the goal was to save the declining population of shrub. But by 2000, the project was abandoned because the conservationist were not able to increase the size of the original plot. But after a decade the project was termed success.

So, we need to address the discrepancy with new information.

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.........................It's not resolving the discrepancy

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched...............It doesn't explain why the project was termed failed and later a success

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.................................Since the virality has improved, growth of the shrub would have started. That's how they would have hailed the project a success.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area...........................Doesn't address the discrepancy

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years..........................Out of scope.

Premise : In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest
IC : this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth

By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot.
Conclusion : Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.
in 2010 the project was declared success we need to find reason for it how it happened...

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. ; this is not relevant as the only way the shrub can grow is this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. ; this could be one of the reasons of the growth of the shrubs as the land after deforestation was left untouched and the this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant ; must be true

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. ; this is concluding on the
percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub the argument does not mention anything about pollination moreover there is no benchmark given of how a threatened species is different from a non threatened species

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. ; this can be a weakener

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. ; this is not relevant

OPTION B is correct

Something that explains that dueing the 1990s the condition was different and something changed in 2000s which resolves the paradox.

A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.----> discovery is irrelvant. it was probably there always

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.----> Yes keep it.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.------->Vitality had improved 1990-2010 so why was it a failure in 2000. it must be improving then in 2000s as well? ELIMINATE

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.----> Irreleavant

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.-----> Out of scope

(B) IMO

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. - Even if a pollinator was discovered, the project was already abandoned. Even the pollinator might not have been used.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. - This could be a possible explanation. Since the shrub could only survive in environments where it was a predominant plant, because of the deforestation, other plants didn't exist and they couldn't possibly grow because of the encroachment of the plot. Also, the land was left untouched. So, the shrub could have found room to grow.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. - This doesn't explain any reason for the possible growth of shrubs.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. - It might weaken the argument as shrub would have become a source of food for some animals.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. -This suggests why the project could be hailed a success for the next 10 years as govt. would take care of the shrubs because of their commercial use. But, it doesn't explain how did the shrubs continue to survive.

(C) is the answer IMO


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.

Not relevant, especially if we see timeline. if discovered in early 2000s why would it affect results in 2010. Also, merely discovery is not good enough reason to frame that the new pollinator of the shrub must be responsible for success of project

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.

Not relevant, especially if we see timeline. No evidence to support why project was considered successful in 2010

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.

Yes, Helps to connect the dots. Probably efforts of the team took longer time and also measuring that project is successful needed special technology that could only be made available in 2010 and results of the testing proved that efforts were put in the right direction - correct choice

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.

It actually weakens the argument as now animal species are thriving and possibly shrub is no more a predominant plant as there are several animals that depend on these shrubs .

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

Irrelevant. Does not answer why why project was considered successful in 2010

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. -> Still we don't know how the unknown pollinator increased the shrub population. Incorrect.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. -> In this case, project won't fail at first. Incorrect.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. -> So, The vitality of the surviving shrubs increasing drastically. It makes sense. Let's keep it.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. -> Species and the scrub have difference to populate. We can't correlate them. Incorrect.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. -> Still we don't have reason for population growth for the scrub. Incorrect.

So, I think C.

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. A pollinator was discovered - this doesn't mean that it wasn't around already, we don't what effect it had. Doesn't explain

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. Hmmm , lets think about this for a minute. We know that the conservationists failed to increase the original 5 acre plot - lets say they couldn't do this because there was enroachment all around and trees were being cut and other plants were being removed (ie deforestation). Then this would have actually left the 5 acre of the shrub the king of the plot with nothing around come 2000s. So no wonder they grew threw the 2000s if the plot was untouched. This one definitely explains why.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. The life of each shrub was longer as compared to its longevity in 1990. Okay ? but this doesn't say anything about what happened through 90s and 2000s and also doesn't talk about population or give a reason to believe the population was affected.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. Sounds like the land is lucky/good for animals ? doesn't have anything to do with the plant species we are talking about, its stretch to say that this is why the plant did well too.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. This seems to say why the shrub might be considered more important now ? (although it was considered important before as well). Doesn't seem to explain IMO. One could say that a fake perception was created to the public to make sure they don't go near it for 10 years ? But that's a stretch and not everyone is trying to make a movie out of this like I am so I think this is not the answer.

The project was abandoned because they failed to increase plot size. This is a key point

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
So what? It was discovered in 2000s but it was always there. Why were the shrubs endangered earlier?

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
What happened in 1990s is irrelevant.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
Yah this can explain that may be they did something because of which the survival rate has improved. Even though plot size did not increase, we now have more shrubs in the same 5 acre plot.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
Other species were thriving but that doesnt explain why our shrubs were thriving

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.
If this is true then the shrub population should have declined till 2010 as it must have been used for experiments.

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. : Merely, the discovery of a pollinator does not explain anything. The pollinator was always present: Eliminate A

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. : It does not explain why the shrub did not grow in the next 10 years until 2000 and then suddenly after a decade it was no longer a threatened species.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. : It is already mentioned in the argument that the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area. This option just strengthens this but does not explain why: Eliminate C

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. : Just because the animal species were thriving in that area does not explain why the project became a success with the shrub. Eliminate D

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.: Ok so may be the people from pharmaceuticals took on from where the conservationists left 2010 -10 = 2000) , since that shrub was of interest to them and in next 10 years the species was not threatened anymore. Correct:

IMO E is correct

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. OFS, This won't lead to the cause.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. Seems valid, So hold.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
OFS, Irrelevant information.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
Proves the opposite for the argument.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. OFS, It doesn't have an impact on the argument.


IMO B

the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species that means that their population was not declining anymore.

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. --> Even if this unknown pollinator was there previously, the shrub's population was still declining. INCORRECT

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. --> it doesnt explain why their population is not considered to be declining anymore. INCORRECT

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. --> this shows that the population was no more declining. CORRECT

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. --> this option talks about the animal species thriving but it doesnt show how it is related to the shrubs population. INCORRECT

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. --> The project was to save the declining population of shrub not using this sh in drugs. irrelevant and INCORRECT

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
The new pollinator can help shrub to survive, but it does not explain that the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area after 2010.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
It does not explain the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area after 2010.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
It says "improved significantly", but after 2010 it has improved much more than significantly. Incorrect

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
Correct. If threatened animal species are thriving in the area this means that some of them must eat some fruits or leaves of the shrub, because it was the predominant plant by 2000. Animals and plants have survived without any human intervention for 10 years, so the shrub is not a threatened species in the area now.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.
Irrelevant. It does not explain the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area after 2010.

IMO D

Answer: A

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. --> Correct. Discovery of unknown pollinator explains why population of shrub would have increased and thereby no longer was seen as a threatened species making project a success.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. --> Incorrect. Doesn't explain what change happened between two decades (1990 - 2000 and 2000 - 2010) to consider project from failure to success.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. --> Incorrect. percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub is not same as population of shrub, hence can't be compared.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. --> Incorrect. Other animal species is irrelevant and out of scope of the argument.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. --> Incorrect. For the sake of gaining governmental approval, project cannot be considered as success. Also, if the shrub goes extinct, even after the governmental approval the compound will not be derived for use due to unavailability of the shrub.

C,E seem irrelevant to me
A doesn't explain anything
D explains that several species enter the experiment area the result would go a different way with the conclusion

left B is a final answer; honestly I'm not quite sure

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
Since the expermintal plot was abandoned by 2000, discovery of new pollinator might be a reason why population of the shrub increased and a decade later, the project was hailed as a success.
Correct

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
The statement does not provide enough reasons why after abandonment of the experimental plot by 2000, decade later it was considered a success.
Incorrect

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
Since the comparison of vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was with vitality the levels observed in 1990, and not with the vitality levels observed when the experimental plot was abandoned. The statement does not provide reasons why the project was hailed a success decades later.
Incorrect.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
A decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area. It means that population of the shrub increased and not of any other species.
Incorrect.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

A decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area. It means that population of the shrub increased. The argument does not mention success because of any other reason such as governmental approval for new medical drug.
Incorrect


IMO A
_________________

From the information provided it is very clear the problem is the lower power of the shrubs to give continuance of life ( to reproduce), so that the shrub species is not endangered. Though the shrubs did not enlarge plot, the main goal is technically have the flowers pollinate and enable growth in the number of the species.

A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
From this statement, pollinator already existed even when the shrubs were endangered. So this is out of scope as it does not connect to why the project was concluded as success.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
This does not connect to the conclusion that the project as successful. After deforestation of experimental plot, if the land was untouched, then how did the species spread?

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
This clearly explains why the project is success. The more pollination of flowers occurs, the higher the survival of the newer shrubs. This will increase the population significantly. Hence the right choice.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
This is outside the scope of the project and its success.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

This is outside the scope of the project and its success.

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. - didn't mention could be true but not always

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. -not helping the shrub to be predominant

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.- true correct helping the shrub to be predominant

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. - not helping the shrub to be predominant

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. - unrelated

C

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

IMO B

Reasoning:-
1. Unless there is an indication that the population of the shrub increased- project could not be taken out of threatened species list and called a success. A does not give any such evidence.
2. Again no direct indication that the population increased. C eliminated
3. Not relevant. D eliminated
4. Same as above

In B- the land was cleared of other vegetation- the shrub grows where it is the predominant species, so it is likely that the shrub grew in this area.

(A) Vague, we do not know anything about useful implications;

(B) out of scope;

(C) if the vitality of the surviving shrubs is improved, the declining trend of its population will be reversed, despite the failure of the project;

(D) out of scope;

(E) out of scope.