Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing

Question

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.
 
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?

(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Environmentalists' claim : More wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year.
 Article criticising E's claim : Recent studies indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years.
 Letter to Editor against the article : You failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.

The argument in the letter  (that you failed to consider intro of new wolves)  is against the article  (that wolf population is stable)  that criticises the claim of Es  (More wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year).

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?

(E) is correct. 
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.

This is what the argument is saying - that the article states that population is stable but that does not mean that the environmentalists’ claim is false because more wolves are introduced each year.

Rest of the options are incorrect.

(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. This is not the reason the author wrote the argument. The author wanted to say that the article's criticism is not correct.

(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
It seems more wolves are killed than are born each year.

(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
The author does not comment on "what should be done".

(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
The argument doesn't say that. The numbers have remained constant.

Gladiator59 · Answer

Let's break down the argument.

Letter to the  editor: (editor of some kind of publication)   Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists    for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year.  You stated that  this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years.   (Premise.)   But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.   (Premise for support of writer's view and additional information that the article did not provide while criticizing the environmentalists)

The first highlight is the conclusion of the author. 
 The second highlight is what the author does not believe is a proper basis for criticizing the environmentalists and the author introduces new information to back his claim.   A combination of these two should be the final conclusion ( or main point) of the argument.
 
Let's look at the options...
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.  TRAP - true fact but not the conclusion of the argument 
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.  Opposite of what the author is trying to say. This is the article's viewpoint which is flawed. 
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.  Out of scope. Discard. 
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.  TRAP - this is true but encapsulates only half of the conclusion of the author. 
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.  Perfect - this combines both the points highlighted above and is the main conclusion of the argument.

Hope this helps.

RicAssassin · Answer

Answer is E.

A is only a fact.
B is contrary to what the author is saying.
C- No backup of such claims
D is onlynhalf true (as it says that study numbers are flawed whereas at least the numbers are OK, reasoning is not)
E is CORRECT!! It sums up the discussion and the pain point of the author.

Arro44 · Answer

In order not to repeat what many of the other members already correctly pointed out, I´ll try to focus on the concept:

Keep in mind that we are focusing on the broader context, the information about the wolves population in Vancouver Island is meant to help us evaluate the argument.
Therefore, make sure not to fall for any answer choices that relate to statements about the wolves population itself rather than to its role in the dispute between the editor and the environmentalists.

unraveled · Answer

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.
 
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?

(A) Environmentalists have been  successfully maintaining the wolf population  on Vancouver Island for 20 years. - WRONG. Not the core of the passage.
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters  as are born each year . - WRONG. Not at all. Already mentioned in the passage.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island  should be maintained  by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population. - WRONG. Can't be conclusion since bringing the new wolves to maintain the population was given as an example to counter the criticism of Environmentalists. 
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were  flawed . - WRONG. May not be flawed but the cause might be different for that. Also, this is not the core of the passage. 
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population  does not warrant the article’s criticism  of the environmentalists’ claim. - CORRECT. Goes right back to the first sentence that said it is unjustified on Editor's part to criticise Environmentalists.

Answer E.

Paras96 · Answer

The conclusion of the argument is best expressed by option (E):

(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.

This conclusion argues that the stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population, which has remained roughly constant for 20 years, is a valid reason to refute or criticize the article's claims that environmentalists were wrong about the number of wolves killed by hunters compared to those born each year. In other words, the argument suggests that the stability of the wolf population justifies the environmentalists' claim, and it questions the criticism presented in the article.

MBAToronto2024 · Answer

KarishmaB  
Hmmm...I chose B based on the reasoning: 
- The population is stable. New wolves are introduced. More are killed than born. 
-20 killed + 10 born 
....
Sum: -10 killed. However, environmentalists introduced new. And the population is stable in number.

We came to he conclusion that 10 more were introduced. -10 + 10 wolves.

KarishmaB · Answer

You are assuming values in which more are being killed than are being born (-20 vs 10).

But (B) says:  As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.

(B) says that the number of wolves killed is equal to the number of wolves born. That is not correct.

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
The argument in the letter objects to a criticism presented in a newspaper article. The article reportedly asserted that a claim made by environmentalists that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year was disproven by studies indicating that the total number of wolves has remained roughly constant for 20 years. The argument in the letter counters this assertion of disproof by presenting additional evidence: environmentalists have been introducing new wolves onto Vancouver Island for 20 years. This means that it is possible that hunters do kill more wolves than are born each year, while the additional wolves introduced by environmentalists have been keeping the population constant.

Your task is to identify the conclusion of the argument, which is the claim that all of the other parts of the argument are intended to support.

The Correct Answer:

E  As outlined in the "Overview," the letter is directed toward raising a specific objection to a newspaper article and presenting evidence to support that objection. The claim in (E) basically restates that objection, which means that it is the conclusion of the argument given in the letter.

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

A  The argument does claim that environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population, and the argument accepts the article's assertion that the wolf population has remained roughly constant. Together these two claims could be a basis for concluding what (A) states, but the argument never explicitly states the view in (A). Instead, the argument is set up to support a different claim, which is stated in (E). So (A) is not the conclusion of the argument.

B  The argument does not directly address any claim about the number of wolves killed by hunters relative to the number born each year. It merely argues that the article has not disproven the claim that more wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year.

C  (C) is a claim about what should be done. But the argument presents factual claims about what is actually happening to the wolf population and uses these to evaluate the article and the argument that it makes—it doesn't say anything about what should be done regarding the wolves on Vancouver Island. So (C) is not the conclusion of the argument.

D  The argument criticizes the conclusion that the article draws from studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant. The argument does not, however, dispute the accuracy of those studies. So (D) does not express any claim made by the argument, which means that it could not possibly express the conclusion.

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing

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

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing

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