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

 It is currently 17 Jun 2019, 08:05

### 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

# No nation in the world has experienced as significant a

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

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1147
No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 10:05
7
19
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:08) correct 50% (02:02) wrong based on 655 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2264
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 10:16
spriya wrote:
No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
_________________
Gmat: http://gmatclub.com/forum/everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html

GT
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 34
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 10:26
B for me.

The conclusion is drawn (the prohibition of using Yucaipa tree is cosmetic is not necessary) based on the assumption that the use of Yucaipa tree is not used only in cosmetics. B attacks this assumption.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1147
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 10:29
B for me.

The conclusion is drawn (the prohibition of using Yucaipa tree is cosmetic is not necessary) based on the assumption that the use of Yucaipa tree is not used only in cosmetics. B attacks this assumption.

Agreed this attacks the assumption !!! but the concl of the argment is
law is unnecessary !!!hence this concl is strengthened by this option!!!

dont u think this option is wrong
_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 34
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 10:32
It really weakens the conclusion. If the Yucaipa tree is not used in any consumer products other than cosmetic, then the prohibition of its use in cosmetic is necessary to save the tree.

Right?
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1147
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 11:31
It really weakens the conclusion. If the Yucaipa tree is not used in any consumer products other than cosmetic, then the prohibition of its use in cosmetic is necessary to save the tree.

Right?

Concl :
But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

B) Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics. => law is necessary !!

i just got confused !!apologies

B also weakens !!!
But which better B Vs C
_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 242
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 12:57
only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics.

but law is 'clearly' unnecessary because inspite of law tree population is declining

C suggests that the tree population is declining cause though the use of Oil is prohibited in this country but but it is still being exported and law is still necessary cause in the future Oil's demand in other country would decline and thus prevention of the use of that Oil will help saving those Trees.

Problem with B is that it actually strenthen the conclusion. It says that the Oil is getting used only in cosmetic products and since the use of Oil is those cosmetic product is banned yet tree population is declining means that law is ineffective thus unnecessary.

C for me.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 123
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2008, 14:32
1
The author says that since the tree is being destroyed for cosmetics, it is useless to have laws against it since the laws are not being obeyed. E clearly states that it is the animals that are destroying the trees more than anything else is. Therefore, repealing the laws (meant for humans) is not good since the cause is not disobedience of the laws.
Therefore, the answer should be E.
Intern
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 25
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 03:00
2
I think its E
The conclusion can be weakened if its proved that law is necessary and should not be repealed. In this nation animals are also contributing in destruction hence if a law can be imposed which will stop humans from destroying the trees, will weaken the conclusion

whats in OA?
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1052
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 03:39
I think B shld b d ans.
spriya wrote:
No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

So B shows that the ban is very much justified.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1147
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 07:17
Between B aand C i strongly feel its C since both of them weaken the argument saying law is necessary !!!!

Now when we talk about weakenin !!!what degree of weakening is important here !!!

B says yucaipa oil is not used in any other products than cosmetics !!! hence in a way says banning the use can result in reduced tree cutting

C says there is an unabated demand of cosmetics with yucaipa oil !!!!hence banning such cosmetics will prove good!!! compared to other nations is mentioned and also in argument other nations is discussed!!hence its better weakener than B

IMO C

GUYS I DONT HAVE THE OA !!!!!

IF ANYONE CAN EXPLORE ON THE SAME !!!it will be a help !!thanks !!
_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 812
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 07:28
1
1
The OA is C (another LSAT question)
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1147
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 07:39
1
The OA is C (another LSAT question)

Thanks !!!! any OE in the same !! i hope such quetsions are not seen in GMAT !!!!i found this on net and interesting and thus posted !!!
_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 123
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 08:56
The author is already contending that the law is ineffective in stemming the destruction of the trees for oil. Therefore, he says, the law should be scrapped (not because it is not needed but because it is ineffective). C states that the demand for the cosmetic oil is going to go up. Thus, the law may be effective and should therefore not be repealed. But in the current situation the law has not been effective. So how can one be sure that it will be effective in the future? Thinking in this manner, the author may be right. However, if as per E, the destruction of the trees is due to animals and not due to making cosmetics, it is likely that the law has so far been effective in its intended purpose and should therefore, not be repealed.
The demand for cosmetics going up in the future could also be met by importing cosmetics from other nations. Trees in the country do not necessarily have to be destroyed for that purpose.
I know that the OA has been posted as C but beware that sometimes the answer key gives one answer while the OE supports a different answer. Could somebody please check for that here?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 812
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2008, 09:19
My first choice was E as well.

One of the things I have noticed is that there's a significant difference between GMAT CR and LSAT CR.

From my experience, after doing a few LSAT questions, the assumptions are very broad, so broad that you need to look above and beyond the premise given - this type of approach usually gets you in trouble in the GMATs.

That is just my observation.
Current Student
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 830
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jul 2016, 11:15
2
spriya wrote:
No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

Conclusion- Law is unnecessary to protect trees.

What is the law:- Prohibits use of Y's oil in cosmetics.

Possible weakeners:-
1) Implementing the law is the only way to reduce the decline in number of trees.
2) If law is not implemented, the trees will be cut at the same or high rate
3) There is no other alternative to Y oil that can be used in cosmetics. And cosmetics sales are likely to increase in future.

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation. Is the law necessary?

b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics. If it is not used in any other goods, does it mean that the trees will not be cut and law is unnecessary. Manufacturers might will keep cutting trees for increase cosmetic demand.

c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation. If the sales are likely to increase in this nation, then we need the law to protect trees. Possible weakener to the argument that law is unnecessary.

d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation. We are not concerned about the price.

e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction. This is actually a strengthener. If animals eat the plants, then law prohibiting oil usage in cosmetics will not help
_________________
I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+
Current Student
Joined: 01 Dec 2016
Posts: 106
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V34
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2017, 08:34
This OA looks controversial.

I believe the author's argument can be summarised as follows:
"The law is supposed to prevent the trees" + " The tree population is decreasing" ==> "The law is useless/not effective".

Flaw: Destruction of the trees may not be caused by human action. It may be caused by other factors.
weaken: Find other factors that destroy the tree population
strenghten: Find additional premise showing that the human action on tree bark is the only reason to explain the destruction of the trees.

Option C - Does not weaken the argument. The fact that "demand for the tree bark will increase in the future" does not change anything in how useful the law can be. If the tree population decreases despite the law enforcement, then increasing demand for the tree bark in the future will not change anything to the law effectiveness.

E - if animals eat the tree bark, and hence contribute to the tree destruction, then we can not conclude that the law is useless. The law may be effective to prevent destruction of the trees, but animals actions may be more destructive than the law is protective.

Answer is E for me.
_________________
What was previously considered impossible is now obvious reality.
In the past, people used to open doors with their hands. Today, doors open "by magic" when people approach them
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 407
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2018, 12:45
guialain wrote:
This OA looks controversial.

I believe the author's argument can be summarised as follows:
"The law is supposed to prevent the trees" + " The tree population is decreasing" ==> "The law is useless/not effective".

Flaw: Destruction of the trees may not be caused by human action. It may be caused by other factors.
weaken: Find other factors that destroy the tree population
strenghten: Find additional premise showing that the human action on tree bark is the only reason to explain the destruction of the trees.

Option C - Does not weaken the argument. The fact that "demand for the tree bark will increase in the future" does not change anything in how useful the law can be. If the tree population decreases despite the law enforcement, then increasing demand for the tree bark in the future will not change anything to the law effectiveness.

E - if animals eat the tree bark, and hence contribute to the tree destruction, then we can not conclude that the law is useless. The law may be effective to prevent destruction of the trees, but animals actions may be more destructive than the law is protective.

Answer is E for me.

I also prefer E here. But understand why the official answer may be C.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 309
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2018, 15:40
IMO C.

Because, even though there might be other reasons for the decline of the tree (such as certain types of wild animals contributing to the destruction of the tree) other than use in cosmetics, if the law is removed then the decline will be much more since the demand is going to go up. Hence the law should not be repealed.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2018
Posts: 126
Location: India
Schools: Tuck '21, ISB '20, NTU '20
GMAT 1: 640 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 670 Q45 V37
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2018, 09:36
GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo
Can you please explain what is wrong with answer choice B?

I feel that if cosmetics is the only consumer good where Yucaipa tree-bark oil used, then lifting the ban would result in further decline in the number of trees. So it weakens the conclusion.
_________________
Please award KUDOS if my post helps. Thank you.
Re: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a   [#permalink] 02 Dec 2018, 09:36

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# No nation in the world has experienced as significant a

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

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