GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Jan 2019, 19:01

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

January 26, 2019

January 26, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.
• Free GMAT Number Properties Webinar

January 27, 2019

January 27, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this webinar to learn a structured approach to solve 700+ Number Properties question in less than 2 minutes.

In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 4
In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 10 Oct 2018, 20:19
2
14
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

84% (01:15) correct 16% (01:38) wrong based on 1157 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the river's water is strictly controlled: farms along the river each have a limited allocation that they are allowed to use for irrigation. But the trees that grow in narrow strips along the river’s banks also use its water. Clearly, therefore, if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

a. The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation
b. Owners of farms along the river will probably not undertake the expense of cutting down trees along the banks unless they are granted a greater allocation of water in return
c. Many of the tree species currently found along the river’s banks are specifically adapted to growing in places where tree roots remain constantly wet.
d. The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed.
e. The distribution of water allocations for irrigation is intended to prevent farms father upstream from using water needed by farms father downstream

Originally posted by yyc881123 on 14 Aug 2009, 16:50.
Last edited by bb on 10 Oct 2018, 20:19, edited 2 times in total.
Necessary Corrections for Official Guide Verbal Review 2nd Edition Project
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 256
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Aug 2009, 17:06
1

Conclusion :Clearly, therefore, if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation

So, answer should be the one where emphasis is on water saving

a. The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation
A fits nicely

Why D is not the answer:-
It talks about more area for crop and not about water and does not weaken the conclusion
_________________

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 768
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Aug 2009, 22:30
Dear yyc881123, would appreciate if you post the OA after people post their explanations so that everyone can benefit.
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 137
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Mar 2012, 18:56
1
I have chosen A for this question:

The conclusion is: [highlight]If farmers were to remove the trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation.[/highlight]

When I first read the passage, I knew that the question would ask for an answer choice to weaken the argument. If you look at the argument, the reasoning is clearly flawed - just by removing the trees, the author is assuming that the total amount of water available would suddenly increase. There are other factors that the author has not considered - this leads me to my prephrases:

1. The water could migrate elsewhere. For example, maybe the water would move into the voids that the trees have left, or maybe the water would move into other porous spaces.
2. The water may evaporate quicker without the shade of the trees.

Now look at each answer choice:

A. This answer choice looks like one of my prephrases. After careful review of the other choices, this is the answer I chose.

B. The argument has already stated "if farmers were to remove the trees...", so this answer choice already does not make sense because it is assumed in the passage. Also, this answer choice doesn't talk about an increase in the total amount of water, instead it talks about whether the farmers will cut down the trees.

C. This actually supports the argument because it states that these trees constantly have wet roots, so these trees probably consume more water than normal. Therefore, this answer choice is incorrect.

D. We are not concerned about whether the land is prime for farming or not - this answer choice is irrelevant.

E. This answer choice talks about the distribution of the total water, and not about whether the total water will increase or decrease once the trees are removed. Therefore, this answer cannot be correct.
Manager
Status: May The Force Be With Me (D-DAY 15 May 2012)
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 213
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2012, 03:18
Hi,

Even i fell for D. Its a very good example of the "EGG SHELL GAME" the GMAT loves to play.

The trick is to identify that D - "The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed. " limits the argument to only the strip of land near the river

The argument can be weakened to a greater extent if the benefit of having the trees along the river bank could be felt over a larger area. This is clearly seen in A

Hence A is correct
_________________

Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 181
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2012, 10:13
A clearly weaken the conclusion "if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation
"
Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 98
Location: United States
Schools: IIMA PGPX"20
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Mar 2014, 16:17
yyc881123 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 22
Page: 123
Difficulty:

In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the river's water is strictly controlled: farms along the river each have a limited allocation that they are allowed to use for irrigation. But the trees that grow in narrow strips along the river’s banks also use its water. Clearly, therefore, if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

a. The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation
b. Owners of farms along the river will probably not undertake the expense of cutting down trees along the banks unless they are granted a greater allocation of water in return
c. Many of the tree species currently found along the river’s banks are specifically adapted to growing in places where tree roots remain constantly wet.
d. The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed.
e. The distribution of water allocations for irrigation is intended to prevent farms father upstream from using water needed by farms father downstream

Please clear my doubt : The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation : So I concluded from this sentence that if we remove the trees then a great amount of water would be lost through evaporation but in the same case we would have more water for crop irrigation.So let's suppose we have 100 ml of more water available for irrigation and 99 ml is evaporated then also we will have extra 1 ml for growing crops and this 1 ml will be enough to get to our conclusion.I know this is a far fetched conclusion but I want to clear my thought process on this.
_________________

Feel Free to Press Kudos if you like the way I think .

MBA Blogger
Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Posts: 88
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Schools: NTU '19
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Sep 2014, 22:01
What if complete 100ml of water is evaporated then our conclusion is not met!!
If the back end supply of water goes lower, then no more water will be available than what is available today.
This will result in less irrigation and will directly effect farms and crops.

I hope its clear!

282552 wrote:
yyc881123 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 22
Page: 123
Difficulty:

In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the river's water is strictly controlled: farms along the river each have a limited allocation that they are allowed to use for irrigation. But the trees that grow in narrow strips along the river’s banks also use its water. Clearly, therefore, if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

a. The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation
b. Owners of farms along the river will probably not undertake the expense of cutting down trees along the banks unless they are granted a greater allocation of water in return
c. Many of the tree species currently found along the river’s banks are specifically adapted to growing in places where tree roots remain constantly wet.
d. The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed.
e. The distribution of water allocations for irrigation is intended to prevent farms father upstream from using water needed by farms father downstream

Please clear my doubt : The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation : So I concluded from this sentence that if we remove the trees then a great amount of water would be lost through evaporation but in the same case we would have more water for crop irrigation.So let's suppose we have 100 ml of more water available for irrigation and 99 ml is evaporated then also we will have extra 1 ml for growing crops and this 1 ml will be enough to get to our conclusion.I know this is a far fetched conclusion but I want to clear my thought process on this.

_________________

Warm Regards.
Visit My Blog

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 503
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Feb 2015, 12:43
narrowed to A and B and picked B (.

I don't get why A is right.. just assumed another scenario and B suited it better. The ARgument says that the farmers have a limited portion of water - let's say 500 Liter per day, if there is more or less water that share would not change; A doesn't say the when we cut all the trees there is almost no water to serve farmers, it just says there is less water.

What's wrong with B - does it strengthen the argument ?
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 126
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 09:38
ichha148 wrote:
Why D is not the answer:-
It talks about more area for crop and not about water and does not weaken the conclusion

Notice that the "strip of land" talked about in D is just limited to the strip of land along the river's banks where trees grow. This should not be confused with "arid land along the Colorado River", which is really the focus of this question.

So, if D had said "The ARID land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed", then I believe D definitely would have been the correct answer.

Wow! So easy to get confused on this, during the exam!
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1877
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Apr 2016, 23:46
yyc881123 wrote:
[textarea]Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the river's water is strictly controlled: farms along the river each have a limited allocation that they are allowed to use for irrigation. But the trees that grow in narrow strips along the river’s banks also use its water. Clearly, therefore, if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

a. The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation
b. Owners of farms along the river will probably not undertake the expense of cutting down trees along the banks unless they are granted a greater allocation of water in return
c. Many of the tree species currently found along the river’s banks are specifically adapted to growing in places where tree roots remain constantly wet.
d. The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed.
e. The distribution of water allocations for irrigation is intended to prevent farms father upstream from using water needed by farms father downstream

Premise: Use of river water is strictly controlled, but there are some trees that use the river's water.
Conclusion: If the trees are removed, more water will be available for irrigation.

We need to weaken this conclusion.
The conclusion can be weakened if we can prove that the trees are not just water suckers, they are actually doing a good job standing there.
Of the given options, option A talks on the same lines by saying that the trees reduce the amount of water that is lost because of evaporation.

Correct Option: A
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2190
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 May 2016, 19:54
In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the river's water is strictly controlled: farms along the river each have a limited allocation that they are allowed to use for irrigation. But the trees that grow in narrow strips along the river’s banks also use its water. Clearly, therefore, if farmers were to remove those trees, more water would be available for crop irrigation

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Conclusion - Remove trees -> more water would be available for crop irrigation
To weaken the conclusion , the correct answer will show that there is a problem with the proposed plan .

a. The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation.
Correct Answer . If the trees greatly reduce the amount of water lost through evaporation , then removing the trees is likely to make LESS water available for crop irrigation . Thus , it will weaken the argument
b. Owners of farms along the river will probably not undertake the expense of cutting down trees along the banks unless they are granted a greater allocation of water in return . Irrelevant .
One should be skeptical of choices that question the difficulty of implementation of the plan .

c. Many of the tree species currently found along the river’s banks are specifically adapted to growing in places where tree roots remain constantly wet.
Incorrect
d. The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed.
iSWAT - This option focuses on the strip of land where trees grow along the river bank's .
Also the conclusion focus directly on availability of water .
e. The distribution of water allocations for irrigation is intended to prevent farms father upstream from using water needed by farms father downstream.
Incorrect - Irrelevant
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Current Student
Joined: 09 Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Jun 2016, 03:38
BrainLab wrote:
narrowed to A and B and picked B (.

I don't get why A is right.. just assumed another scenario and B suited it better. The ARgument says that the farmers have a limited portion of water - let's say 500 Liter per day, if there is more or less water that share would not change; A doesn't say the when we cut all the trees there is almost no water to serve farmers, it just says there is less water.

What's wrong with B - does it strengthen the argument ?

I thought so too, since it says in the premise that farmers have a certain allocation. I thought the allocation would stay the same even if the trees are removed. What is the use of removing the trees if they still don't get any increase in their allocation?
Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2016
Posts: 208
Location: United States
GPA: 3.4
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Jul 2017, 10:18
Conclusion: Remove tress - get more water for crops
Premise 1: Arid region water usage is controlled
Premise 2: Famers allocated water

We are looking for an answer that weakens the conclusion that "removing trees will somehow provide farmers with more water to irrigate"

(A). The trees along the river’s banks shelter it from the sun and wind, thereby greatly reducing the amount of water lost through evaporation - Does this weaken the conclusion? To some extent YES, I will keep this as a possible answer because this tells us that the trees are infact not costing the farmers water but saving them water that would have evaporated.

(B). Owners of farms along the river will probably not undertake the expense of cutting down trees along the banks unless they are granted a greater allocation of water in return - Does this weaken the conclusion?NO. We are not concerned with the expense anywhere in this topic. Hence it can be ruled out.

(C). Many of the tree species currently found along the river’s banks are specifically adapted to growing in places where tree roots remain constantly wet - Does this weaken the conclusion? NO. If anything this strengthens the argument that the trees are indeed leeching a lot of water.

(D). The strip of land where trees grow along the river’s banks would not be suitable for growing crops if the trees were removed - Does this weaken the conclusion? NO. We are not concerned with whether or not the soil is cultivable. Don't lose sight of the conclusion that we just need to get more water. Not how we use this water.

(E). The distribution of water allocations for irrigation is intended to prevent farms father upstream from using water needed by farms father downstream - Does this weaken the conclusion? NO. We are not concerned what is the intention behind the allocation. Just whether or not we can get more by removing trees.

_________________

Kudosity killed the cat but your kudos can save it.

Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Posts: 31
GPA: 3.99
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jul 2018, 02:11
Question Que: "seriously weaken"
Question Type: weaken, argument

To weaken this type of question:
1. find conclusion 2.find evidence (premise) 3.find assumption (gap) 4. ATTACK the gap (alternate cause)

Conclusion: Farmers cut tree, then more water flow

Evidence: water supply is strictly control: farms along the river have limited access to water for irrigation use.

Assumption (pre-thinking that closes the gap):
Trees are not beneficial in water irrigation. Therefore, if Cut tree, irrigation will improve.

Weaken:
Trees are beneficial in water irrigation. Therefore, if Cut tree, irrigation will get worst

A. Cut tree , water lost through evaporation.
Re: In the arid land along the Colorado River, use of the &nbs [#permalink] 25 Jul 2018, 02:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by