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

To consider the project a success, the project would have to save a declining population of a rare flowering shrub.

A - Does not attribute the success to the project - OUT
B- If Deforestation led to encroachment then more plants would be lost and it only says the land was left untouched. SUPPOSE if all land surrounding the experimental land, with the exception of the experimental land itself, was deforested, then this would have been a valid point. But we don't have that here hence OUT
C- This is a strong reason to consider the efforts a success. If the vitality improved as a result of the project then that could help grow the species.
D - Has nothing to do with the plant species being saved.
E - Again nothing to do with rescuing the rare plant.

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.
No. Why would this affect the success or failure of the project?

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
No. Why would this affect the success or failure of the project?

(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.
Correct. This explains why the project was a success and the shrub is no longer endangered

(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.
How would this explain why the shrub is no longer endangered?

(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. Why would this affect the success or failure of the project and that the shrub is no longer endangered?

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. knowing this information best explain why the plant might have flourished even after the project was abandoned.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. does not help to explain why the project was successful even though the project was abandoned

(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. we already know that the plant flourished buy why

(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. ao what about the plant. how does this explain why the plant florished

(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. so what. does not explain why the plant flourished.

Ans: A

Option C is the correct answer. If the vitality of the shrubs increased, the project indeed was a success.

Option A : If an unknown pollinator was found in 2000, we can assume the shrub population could have increased. But it has no relation with the project and hence the project cannot be termed a success. Incorrect.

Option B : Similar to A. It may lead to increase in the shrub population but that cannot be attributed to the project and hence the project can't be termed a success. Incorrect.

Option D : No connection with the shrubs or the project. Incorrect.

Option E : Again, no connection with the project. Incorrect.

My answer is (C).

For the Madagascar shrub salvation project to be hailed as a success, albeit a decade after it was abandoned, something positive must have occurred, and the project itself should be able to claim credit for such positive development.

(A) The discovery took place after the project was abandoned. The project cannot take credit.

(B) The project cannot take credit.
Also, the meaning of "after which" is unclear.

(C) The project participants can claim that such significant improvement is due to their efforts.

(D) The connection between the revival of several animal species and that of the shrub is not clear.
What's more, the project cannot take credit.

(E) Maybe, as the result, pharmaceutical companies, with their vast resources, undertake the effort to grow the shrubs. But the project cannot take credit, unless the project was actually funded by those companies to investigate, under the guise of preservation, how to derive commercial benefits by exploiting the threatened species.

A: Even when the unknown pollinator was not discovered until the early 2000s, it might have been around before the project was abandoned; thus, this option does not help explain why the project succeeded later => eliminate A
B: While this may help explain why the project failed by 2000, it does not explain why it succeeded later => eliminate B
C: This is the correct answer. It helps explain why the project was considered successful later even though there was no increase in the size of the plot; there was an increase in the shrub's vitality instead
D: This option merely describes a similar situation with what happened to the shrub, it does not help explain WHY it happened => eliminate D
E: The shrub being approved for pharmaceutical use is irrelevant here => eliminate E

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

Maybe. This, if true, would surely contribute to saving the shrub population.

Maybe. Though this relates too little to the passage. Are shrubs affected by deforestation in any way? Shouldn't deforestation contribute to the shrub being the dominant species (assuming deforestation affects plants only)? Too little relevant info in the passage, so this option seems out of place.

2010 was more than "a decade later" than "by 2000s", so no. Also, this speaks of evidence of survival, not the reasons thereof.

The project focused on shrubs, not animals, so no.

The project focused on shrubs' survival, not the pharma industry, so no.

Option C.

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. = The passage talks what happened in 2010 that the project was hailed a success and not in early 2000s. incorrect usage.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. = If land was left untouched nothing was done and we cannot come to a conclusion that situation was improved. Incorrect usage.

(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 there was a significant change , the surviving shrubs demonstrated to have improved significantly from levels in 1990 so hailed 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. = Too extreme and not helping to reach a specific conclusion. Incorrect usage.

(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. = Too extreme and not helping to reach a specific conclusion. Incorrect usage.

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.

(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.

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

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.

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