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

It is currently 17 Jan 2019, 15:59

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
  • The winning strategy for a high GRE score

     January 17, 2019

     January 17, 2019

     08:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     January 19, 2019

     January 19, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Director
Director
avatar
V
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 884
Location: United States (MA)
Reviews Badge
Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jan 2019, 09:12
2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (01:46) correct 44% (01:47) wrong based on 118 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________

Non progredi est regredi

Senior PS Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 652
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2019, 03:57
Let's break down the argument.

Letter to the editor:(editor of some kind of publication) Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists [conclusion]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.
_________________

Regards,
Gladi



“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Posts: 35
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2019, 18:10
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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8789
Location: Pune, India
Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jan 2019, 03:48
Akela wrote:
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.


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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT Club Bot
Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing &nbs [#permalink] 10 Jan 2019, 03:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.