PriyankaPalit7 wrote:
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.
Hey
PriyankaPalit7 !
Let me try to explain!
Quote:
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
Imagine you are in a conversation with the author of the above passage. If you tell him that "Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used in any other consumer goods other than cosmetics.", what do you think he will reply? He will just say "Okay. Thanks for the info. The law is still useless.".
We are not really weakening his conclusion by stating the above.
Example if 1% trees are being used for cosmetics and other huge % is declining because of some other reason. Now if you tell the author the above option B then will he care? Think about it.
Also do we know that the option is taking about the nation in particular or is just stating some fact common to all nations?
Remember when you find such options, hang on to them. Evaluate the others to find if you have an option that weakens the argument more directly!
Keeping the above in mind, let us also check E!
Quote:
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
First i want you to notice "
some" and "
thereby contributing".
Same logic as above. Imagine a conversation with the author. If you say the above, will he care? Will it weaken his conclusion. He will again thank you for the info.
Also be careful with words such as "some". Some means how many? Is it 1 , 2, 3 or more than 3?
"contributing". By how much? 1%? 90%?
Hope this helps!