One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based mere

Question

Competition Mode Question

One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based merely on the fact that animals are living things concern scope. If one construes the term “living things” broadly, one is bound to bestow rights on organisms that are not animals (e.g. plants). But if this term is construed narrowly, one is apt to refuse rights to organisms that, at least biologically, are considered members of the animal kingdom.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred from them?

(A) Not all animals should be given rights.

(B) One cannot bestow rights on animals without also bestowing rights on at least some plants.

(C) The problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living things interferes with every attempt to establish animal rights.

(D) Successful attempts to establish rights for all animals are likely either to establish rights for some plants or not to depend solely on the observation that animals are living things.

(E) The fact that animals are living things is irrelevant to the question of whether animals should or should not be accorded rights, because plants are living things too.

exc4libur · Answer

argument
= hard to estab animal rights bc of "liv things" definition
= wide def also implies plants
= narrow def excludes organisms considered animals

infer
ans (D) if rights are estab, they likely include plants, or don't depend on such definition.

randomavoidplease · Answer

I will go with "C" but heavily confused between D and E as well.

h31337u · Answer

One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based merely on the fact that animals are living things concern scope. If one construes the term “living things” broadly, one is bound to bestow rights on organisms that are not animals (e.g. plants). But if this term is construed narrowly, one is apt to refuse rights to organisms that, at least biologically, are considered members of the animal kingdom.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred from them?

(A) Not all animals should be given rights.

(B) One cannot bestow rights on animals without also bestowing rights on at least some plants.

(C) The problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living things interferes with every attempt to establish animal rights.

(D) Successful attempts to establish rights for all animals are likely either to establish rights for some plants or not to depend solely on the observation that animals are living things.

(E) The fact that animals are living things is irrelevant to the question of whether animals should or should not be accorded rights, because plants are living things too.
______________________________________________________
It took me 3 minutes and I should work on my timing. 
The answer I concluded to be right is "B".

The answer choice B must be true in order for the whole statement to be true.

Divyanshu1234 · Answer

I was confused between D and E 
I think E should be the correct answer

Posted from my mobile device

PgRaul · Answer

Can someone explain why D is correct?
Successful attempts to establish rights for all animals are likely either to establish rights for some plants or not to depend solely on the observation that animals are living things.

There is nothing mentioned in the paragraph about successful attempts. It is taking about difficulty.

HARSHITMAHESHWARI · Answer

Bunuel  Can you please explain why option C can not be the answer, it also states the problem to draw a clear boundary for the living being definition, a problem mentioned in the question.

SiddharthSachdeva · Answer

My problem with D is that it mentions "some" plants. Had it written, only plants or all plants, then the option would have made sense

nolounta · Answer

i thought that too! i'm really confused

Nipunh · Answer

SOME = 1 TO ALL, so it can mean all plants as well...
Some does not mean "not all", it means atleast 1. Try solving it again.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

can we please get the official explanation for this question?

Matty101 · Answer

This looks like it: https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?t=9230

losstng · Answer

This took exactly 3 minutes but here is my understanding and reasoning process for this problem.
Inference is for us to look at the stimuli again and inspect what is going on there.

It is especially important to look at the WORDINGS: ‚One of the great difficulties‘ This means there are multiple difficulties and problems in establishing animal rights. 
Furthermore, the conclusion alone took me 20 seconds of reading and rereading to understand what it means. ‚Based merely on the fact ... that animals are living things concern scope‘. The  concern scope  is a nightmare  due to its phrasing and flow of the sentence.  However, this is especially where those questions come in and challenge us.

So now the premises, the premises should albeit clarify what the conclusion is, it is regarding the scope of what defines an animal. However, it would have been easier before moving on to the premise to understand the conclusion. So the 2 premises 
- Define the scope too broadly, if we count or in this passage  construe  the meaning of living things in this way, it would count plants. 
- Define too narrow, some organisms that is in  the animal kingdom  would be left out of the animal rights, no good.

So now what do we know to infer?
- So the interpretation of what is a LIVING ORGANISM is important, it is the premise for the conclusion in stating that it concerns the scope. SO there comes the word CONSTRUE, along with 2 cases in explaining why it is a GREAT Difficult. Broadly we should know that it would concern PLANTS. Narrowly we would leave out some animal or ORGANISMS that would otherwise count into the animal kingdom.

SO it is about unable to define a scope and the 2 premises points to us interpreting the word LIVING ORGANISM, that has been one of the difficulties in defining in establishing animal rights.

A. This is one is a bit extreme with wording, and really out of scope. The subject is not of not to give some animals the right, on the contrary, in the second premise, we get opposite in that we try to give every animal rights, or least try to give some that would otherwise be counted out.

B. Remember the problem here is not the rights on animal, but the scope of defining LIVING ORGANISMS. And one certainly can bestow rights on animal without on plants if we do construe it too narrowly. We are just trying not to do it too broadly and find a way to separate animals and plants in writing the law.

C. This is a good one. It captures every essence until the word ‚every‘. Remember in the beginning, we had ONE OF THE GREAT DIFFICULTIES. So it must be interfering with everything but only a large amount.

D. This one would be hard to see especially given that it is reflecting another position. It does help that it includes both premises, but it is staging the opposite. It the contra positive in a way, because the 2 premises point to a deadlock, so if that deadlock were to be resolved, we would need either one of those 2 to take forth leaving one behind.

E. This phrasing is extreme, because it is posing one point of view, it is finessing the idea of the passage and making an opinion on it, it is enforcing an opinion. It is an argument.

PS: this is my first post ever and my first attempt to write it out on GMAT Club, so my wording might not be concise and clear.

One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based mere

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

One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based mere

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