Hello, GMAT Club-bers and mental athletes. Who does not love a good paradox, the chance to play Sherlock Holmes and get to the bottom of a mystery? The question tells us exactly what to expect: a failed project must have been evaluated at a later time and thought of differently. All we need to do is deduce
why.
Bunuel wrote:
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?
- Sentence one outlines the goal of the project: to save a declining population of a rare flowering shrub. We get further background information. (We can always consult the passage again for details.)
- Sentence two provides information on both the shrub and the experimental design—in short, ensure sustainability in a small plot of forest and then expand the plot.
- Sentence three informs us that 10 years after the project was launched, it was abandoned, and that the original 5-acre plot was never expanded.
- Sentence four paints a much rosier picture of the project and the sustainability of the shrub from the perspective of a decade later, around 2010.
What do we need to know to put the pieces together?
Quote:
(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
This is the sort of answer I would chase when I started looking at CR questions. The problem is that nothing indicates that the
pollinator was not present before
the early 2000s. Researchers (or humans in general) simply did not know of its existence until a later time.
Quote:
(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
The timeline and the supporting details add up perfectly here. We are to understand that
throughout the duration of the experiment, the forest was being chiseled away (pardon the mixed metaphor), so the lack of expansion of the original 5-acre plot makes sense. Also, if
the land was left untouched after the 1990s, or, in other words, during the 2000s, then the forest would have had time to take over again. Finally, the passage tells us in line two that the shrub
can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant. If one plot was protected while the surrounding forest was cut down to some extent, then the chances for repopulation of the endangered shrub, post-1990s, would increase. This looks like a great answer.
Quote:
(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.
Another strong trap answer, this one even incorporates a qualifier that is commonly used in
correct answers to CR questions:
significantly. But we cannot blindly follow language. In this case,
the surviving shrubs is vague and could refer to just two shrubs. Even if those two shrubs looked perfect, better than fifty shrubs had looked in 1990 (by whatever metric employed), we cannot say that this is
likely the reason that the project was later considered a success
without further contextual information. Conservation is the goal, not prettier or more robust shrubs. Of course, we cannot argue with the given statement at the end of the passage that
the project was hailed a success, so there were probably more than two shrubs, but I hope you get the point I am aiming to make. Unqualified language can often prove misleading.
Quote:
(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.
Perhaps this bonus effect could help explain why the project was later considered
more successful, but do not lose sight of the focus of the project itself:
saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub. Animals and shrubs are not one and the same. We are interested in reconciling information on the latter, and as awful as it sounds, we are not interested in these
animal species.
Quote:
(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.
Like (D) above, the wool gets pulled over our eyes here and has us focus on a distraction—
pharmaceuticals and
drugs—but neither one has anything to do with the original project. We are told at the end of the passage that
the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area. The paradox hinges on
the shrub and its conservation, nothing else (even if the compound in question was derived from the shrub).
Based on what I have seen in tougher official questions, (A) and (C) read like good trap answers, while (B) is completely unassuming, relying on the test-taker to comb through the details of the passage to arrive at that
eureka moment.
As always, I hope my analysis may prove useful to the community, and good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
close
24 Aug 2021, 08:00
73%
(02:37)
wrong 
