An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to the influx of

Question

An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to the influx of visitors to the forest since it was opened to hikers a year ago. County officials deny that this is the case, claiming that the paths cleared for hikers were carefully situated so as not to interfere with the forest’s overall health.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by the county officials?

(A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected.
(B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths.
(C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths.
(D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the local environment.
(E) The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months.

EMPOWER  gmat    CR Question Pack 2

Question 53: Forest Degradation

48 Hour Answer & Explanation Window  
 Earn KUDOS!  Have your explanations evaluated to help boost your learning. Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.

Scroll Down For Official Explanation

◀ Question 52 
 ▶ Question 54 
 ⏏ CR Library Pack 2 Home

ravigupta2912 · Answer

Strengthener 
Argument - Forest is degrading due to influx of visitors
Counter Argument - Degradation is not due to the influx.

We need to strengthen the CA.

(A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected. -- Irrelevant. Even a few can damage the environment. Eliminate.

(B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths. -- Weakener. If the degradation is say within a yard of the hiking path, it weakens our counter argument. Eliminate.

(C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths. -- Contender. But eliminated since there can be multiple activities of the hikers which can cause degradation.

(D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the 
local environment. -- Irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate.

(E) The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months. -- Provides more information that the forest degradation has actually degraded in recent years but is now improving. Note, the argument does not say "the  recent  increase in forest degradation", so we can fairly say that while talking of the "increase", the argument is referring to a timeline that is more than the last 6 months or 1 year. Option E gives us additional information to believe that the forest degradation is due to some other reason and is not because of the influx of visitors. Correct answer imo.

winterschool · Answer

An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to the influx of visitors to the forest since it was opened to hikers a year ago. County officials deny that this is the case, claiming that the paths cleared for hikers were carefully situated so as not to interfere with the forest’s overall health.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by the county officials?

(A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected.  Incorrect

weakens officials argument - less people use paths, more people do not use path so they clear forest for their hiking

(B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths.  Incorrect

weakens officials argument

(C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths.  Irrelevant

(D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the local environment.  Irrelevant

(E)  The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months.   Correct

so degradation began not for hikers

RajatJ79 · Answer

Key points from passage  - 
Forest opened to hikers year ago. Increase in degradation since has been attributed to the influx.
County officials deny the above claim. County officials mention placement of paths as reason for denying the claim.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by the county officials?

(A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected.
 The number of hikers using the path does not affect forest degradation.

(B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths.
 Option speaks about only a specific part of the forest and not about forest as a whole. Whereas the passage is concerned with the whole forest.

(C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths.
 Undergrowth is not specifically mentioned in the passage.

(D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the local environment.
 Irrelevant information.

(E) The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months.
  Option mentions that forest degradation began several years ago, i.e. before the forest was opened to hikers. Additionally, the Option mentions that in the last six months, degradation has reduced.
This provides the strongest support for the position held by the county officials

Answer should be option E.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Please keep in mind shikhasing4 that we won't award kudos to answers that are a copy/paste of another person's comments. Next time, put things in your own words.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Official Explanation:

An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to the influx of visitors to the forest since it was opened to hikers a year ago. County officials deny that this is the case, claiming that the paths cleared for hikers were carefully situated so as not to interfere with the forest’s overall health. 
 
 Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by the county officials? 
 
 (A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected. 
 (B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths. 
 (C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths. 
 (D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the local environment. 
 (E) The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months.

Question Type:   Inference
  Boil It Down:   A forest opened to hikers a year ago. An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to them. Officials deny this, because the paths they cleared for hikers were carefully picked so as to not hurt the forest’s health.

Goal:    Find the option that would provide the strongest or most logical support for the officials’ argument.

Analysis:  
The question asks us “Which would provide the strongest support for the position held by the county officials?” We must first determine what the position of the county officials is. What are the county officials trying to prove? Here, the language should be obvious: “County officials deny that this is the case” and “  claim   that …” The County officials are trying to prove that hikers are not causing the forest degradation because the paths for them were carefully chosen to avoid that outcome.

With that in mind, let’s pick a prediction which supports that position. My first thought goes to alternative explanations. If hikers aren’t causing the forest degradation, could there be another cause which happened to overlap with the new influx of hikers? Maybe at the same time the trails opened to hikers a huge company opened up their factory which is polluting the forest. Perhaps the weather has changed in recent years, causing degradation to get worse. That would give us an alternative explanation as to why it wasn’t the hikers causing the problem.

Let’s look for the most logical evidence to support the officials and their claim that hikers aren’t the problem here:

(A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected.
 This is incorrect. As with many wrong answers, people want to draw an unwarranted assumption out of the answer choice. There were fewer hikers, therefore they caused less degradation. However, we do not know how fewer hikers caused less forest degradation. There is nothing to connect those two without an assumption. Perhaps I would look again at this question if there is no other good answer choice, but for now I am hesitant because it’s asking me to make a large assumption.

(B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths.
 This would destroy our argument. The officials are trying to prove that the hikers are not causing the forest degradation. However, if most of the forest degradation is occurring very close to the hiking trails, it seems to support the opposite conclusion that hikers are in fact the cause. This choice is incorrect.

(C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths.
 This choice is incorrect because it gets rid of a possible alternative explanation. For example, county officials could have argued that bikers, and not the hikers, are the cause of degradation. However, if biking is banned then we now have one less possible explanation. This option also forces us to make the assumption that people are biking on the hiking trails - and we have no evidence to show that they are or not. This does not support our position.

(D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the local environment.
 Good intentions do not prove good outcomes. Sure, the county official who pushed this cares about the environment, and he would not want to cause forest degradation. But this does not prove that the hikers are not the cause of the degradation. This answer choice shows us nothing regarding why or why not hikers are a problem.

(E) The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months.
 This is the correct choice. The forest degradation already started before the hikers had a large influx from the trails, but once the trails were introduced a year ago, the degradation began to lessen. It does not provide an alternative explanation like I predicted, but it does help prove that hikers are not the problem. If hikers were the problem, you would have expected degradation to increase once the trails were opened, not to decrease.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

RohitSaluja · Answer

IMO E is the answer and below is the reasoning for it

(A) The number of hikers using the path has been substantially fewer than expected. - This is a potential weakener, if the path is being used less, it could point to the fact that hikers are in fact degrading the forest

(B) The section of forest with the greatest amount of degradation is within 1100 yards of the hiking paths. - Sort of weakner

(C) Bicycle use, which can greatly damage forest undergrowth, is forbidden on the hiking paths. - Strengthener, this indicates that if there are folks who use bicycle in forest cant use the path dedicated for hiker thus in turn damaging the forest by cycling through it, let's hold on to this one

(D) The county official who led the effort to open the forest to hikers is president of a group dedicated to protecting the local environment. - Irrelevant, based on appeal to emotion

(E) The forest degradation began several years ago and has lessened somewhat in the last six months.- Strengthener as it points out that due to path the degradation has rather lessened, and this is more concrete than C, hence the correct answer

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Can you please elaborate the option choice analysis

An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to the influx of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

An increase in forest degradation has been attributed to the influx of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards