Matheus: Our city council is considering whether to zone the last unde

Question

Matheus: Our city council is considering whether to zone the last undeveloped stretch of waterfront within the city limits for industrial development. I think this land should become a nature preserve instead. It is a major nesting area for migratory waterfowl, some of them endangered species.

Ramizah: But our city suffers high unemployment, and industrial riverfront development would be among the most promising ways to create jobs. A short distance away, other undeveloped riverfront areas outside the city limits are available for migratory waterfowl.

Assuming the information provided is true, select  Matheus  for the statement that would, if true, most strongly support Matheus's position, and select  Ramizah  for the statement that would, if true, most strongly support Ramizah's position. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Aarushi225 · Answer

Hi nkim
You first need to evaluate what both are saying.

mathew- no industrial development because major resting area
ramizah- waterfowls can access areas outside the city. Jobs creation is important

we have to choose assumptions for each in order to strengthen respected statements.

For Mathew- option c states directly weakens Ramizahs statement about other undeveloped riverfront areas outside the city limits are available for migratory waterfowl. Since the large nesting population is found within city, areas outside dont matter

For Ramizah- She says that other undeveloped riverfront areas outside the city limits are available for migratory waterfowl. Option e goes hand in hand with this statement, that removing one nesting area would not create that big an impact.

I hope this helps!

Purnank · Answer

Matheus - C - stating about density of waterfowl more inside than outside. acting as strengthen one for matheus.
Ramizah - E - attacking one site of waterfowl species wont going to affect that much if there are multiple numbers of sites are present - acting as strengthen one for ramizah.

SergejK · Answer

This question is easy to solve once we find the assumptions with each argument. The way we can help ourselves with such type of questions where there is a  counter-argument  is by understanding what the counter-argument attacks and this is in most cases based on the first assumption.

In our case,  Matheus' conclusion  is that the land should become a nature preserve, based on the fact that it is a major nesting area for migratory waterfowl some of which are endangered. If we don't find the assumption right away (either that the industrial project can be started somewhere else OR that the birds cannot nest somewhere else), we can look at what Ramizah is countering and what he is attacking. Ramizah conclusion is unstated, which maybe makes it hard to find the underlying assumption. What he is trying to say is that the city council  needs to build there  as this is one of the most promising ways to create jobs. After stating his counter-point, Ramizah presents an alternative nesting place, and by providing this alternative, he is attacking one of  Matheus' assumptions, namely that the birds cannot nest somewhere else . What is  Ramizah assuming ? His assumption is that there is  no difference in the quality of the nesting places and that the birds will migrate there .

Looking at the answer choices, we see that C provides support for Matheus' assumption that waterfront within the city is the perfect location, as the largest endangered waterfowl population resides there. And E is perfectly complements Ramizah's assumption that there is no difference in the quality of the nesting places as losing the intercity waterfront nesting area is unlikely to reduce the waterfowl population.

miag · Answer

why can D) not be the answer for Ramizah?  Bunuel   chetan2u   Bismuth83  would appreciate your expert opinion here!

chetan2u · Answer

Matheus himself says that this stretch is the last undeveloped stretch in the city limits. So D says nothing new.

manavsaraf001 · Answer

For Matheus , why option A - " city council wants to protect migratory waterfowl " - is incorrect.

ravjaz · Answer

Bumping this up, why not A? I'm struggling to understand how I should be thinking of questions such as this since from my perspective, C is somewhat restating what M said whilst A adds to it making it a stronger?

cheshire · Answer

Matheus's Core Argument:
 
So his claim is:
 
 The land is  ecologically important  and should be protected.

Option A:
 
This sounds supportive in tone, but it doesn't do what we need:
 
 It tells us  what the council wants , not  why  this specific land matters. 
 Even if the council wants to protect migratory birds, it might think  other areas  would be better for that — it doesn’t prove that this undeveloped waterfront is especially important.  
 Option A supports a general value , but it doesn’t give a  reason to preserve this specific land .

Option C:
 
Now this directly strengthens Matheus's argument because:
 
 It shows this  specific area  is  uniquely valuable  to  endangered  waterfowl. 
 That means preserving  this  site has  real conservation impact , not just symbolic value.  
 Option C makes Matheus’s argument evidence-based and location-specific.

Prak0709 · Answer

Can you mention which line clarifies this ?

Bunuel · Answer

Matheus: Our city council is considering whether to zone the last undeveloped stretch of waterfront within the city limits for industrial development. I think this land should become a nature preserve instead. It is a major nesting area for migratory waterfowl, some of them endangered species.

It is in the first sentence: “ ...the last undeveloped stretch of waterfront within the city limits... ”

That already tells you there are no other undeveloped stretches inside the city, so option D does not add anything helpful.

SanketPatil · Answer

Why can't B be the option to support Matheus?

Bunuel · Answer

Matheus is arguing that this specific  waterfront inside the city limits should be preserved because it is an important nesting area for migratory waterfowl , including endangered species.

B does not say the city can preserve this site instead of developing it.

It says industrial development outside the city limits could create jobs  in addition  to the jobs created by development within the city limits. So it still leaves the within city limits development on the table. That does not help Matheus protect this specific waterfront.

Matheus	Ramizah
		The city council wants to protect migratory waterfowl.
		Industrial riverfront development outside the city limits could create jobs in addition to those created through industrial development within the city limits.
		Of the endangered waterfowl that nest in or near the city, the largest nesting population is found in the undeveloped waterfront within the city limits.
		There are more undeveloped areas along the waterfront near but outside the city limits than there are inside the city limits.
		Losing this one nesting area is unlikely to reduce the populations of any waterfowl species that nest in the area.

Matheus: Our city council is considering whether to zone the last unde

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 Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Matheus: Our city council is considering whether to zone the last unde

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