It can safely be inferred that there are at least as many trees in Ith

Question

It can safely be inferred that there are at least as many trees in Ithaca as there are in Tompkins. More trees were planted in Ithaca in the past two years than in Tompkins.

From which one of the following does the conclusion logically follow?

(A) More trees were planted in Ithaca in the past two years than in Tompkins.
(B) Ithaca is the region within which Tompkins is located.
(C) Tompkins is suffering from an epidemic of tree-virus infection.
(D) The average annual rainfall for Ithaca is greater than the average annual rainfall for Tompkins.
(E) The average number of trees cut down annually in Tompkins is higher than in Ithaca.

Nightmare007 · Accepted Answer

Hi Conclusion is - Trees in I always > Trees in T . Premise - MANY Trees are planted in T . Reasoning - No matter how many trees are planted still T , Still The I >= Trees in T .- this can be followed by the wording we can still safely infer that. Now when can you say this is always true- Only when T is just a subset of I . So no matter how much the content of T is increased . I will always be equal or greater than T .

. +kudos if you like my reasoning.

grichagupta · Answer

(A) It states the fact already mentioned in the stem. Hence, Incorrect
(B) A little visualization helps here.. If Tomkins is a subset of Ithaca, conclusion drawn in stem follows.Hence, correct
(C) No mention of tree- virus infection in the stem. Difficult to build a link between planting more trees and infection. Hence, Incorrect 
(D) Same logic as above. Hence, Incorrect
(E) Same logic as above. Hence, Incorrect

onkargm · Answer

Can someone please explain what makes Tompkins a sub region of Ithaca, how can one deduce this logic.

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo B
Only in this case the conclusion is valid .
Ithaca is place within Ithaca so the number of trees will be more.

DharLog · Answer

I do not like question with such right answers. But the other options are so awful, that we do not have choice.
So all option except B are out.
And if we think carefully about B - yes, it is logical.

SonalSinha803 · Answer

Hi

The premise doesn't mention many trees are planted in Tomkins...it says more trees were planted in Ithaca in the past two years than in Tomkins.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

kornn · Answer

Dear VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber IanStewart AjiteshArun,

Q1. First off, I think the question stem should be FROM (not FOR) which one of the following does the conclusion logically follow?

Please confirm whether I am right.

Q2. Considering that choice B. is correct, how is the last sentence in the stimulus relevant to the conclusion?

It now does not matter whether more trees were planted in Ithaca in the past two years than in Tompkins. I think in light of choice B., this part is becoming completely irrelevant or meaningless.

Q3. How does choice E. NOT strengthen the argument?

If the average number of trees cut down annually in Tompkins is higher than in Ithaca and if more trees were planted in Ithaca in the past two years than in Tompkins, then it is MORE LIKELY that there are at least as many trees in Ithaca as there are in Tompkins. (more trees were planted fewer trees were cut!)

I think the strengthener does not necessarily prove the conclusion. It just makes me believe more (to some extent) in the conclusion.

Please explain why choice E. is incorrect?

PS: Since the book does not provide detailed explanation for other choices, I would appreciate it if you could explain why choice C and D does not strengthen the argument as well

Thank you in advance!

IanStewart · Answer

Q1 - yes, you are right
Q2 - yes, you are right, it turns out to be irrelevant
Q3 - the question is not asking you to "strengthen the argument". It is asking for an answer the choice that ensures the conclusion will "logically follow". The argument needs to be airtight when we insert the correct answer choice. Strengthening is not enough.

Elite097 · Answer

The conclusion states that there are at least as many trees in Ithaca as there are in Tompkins. For this to logically follow, there must be a reason why Ithaca's tree count encompasses or exceeds Tompkins'. The only statement that supports this reasoning is that Ithaca is a larger region that includes Tompkins. If Ithaca contains Tompkins, then all the trees in Tompkins are also in Ithaca, and any additional trees outside of Tompkins but within Ithaca make the conclusion valid.
The other options do not logically lead to the conclusion:
 
  (A)  Restates part of the premise but does not explain why Ithaca has at least as many trees as Tompkins. 
  (C)  Discusses a tree-virus epidemic but provides no information about tree counts. 
  (D)  Mentions rainfall, which is unrelated to the conclusion about tree numbers. 
  (E)  Talks about tree cutting but does not establish the relationship between Ithaca and Tompkins.

4

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

It can safely be inferred that there are at least as many trees in Ith

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

It can safely be inferred that there are at least as many trees in Ith

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