Zoologist: Every domesticated large mammal species now in existence wa

Premise: every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago

Premise: since that time, people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating

Conclusion: thus, most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating

B is required for the conclusion to be valid. If you negate B, it becomes " it is much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past" and is an objection to the conclusion/argument

Let me try to answer this in logical way:

Premise: every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago

Premise: since that time, people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating

Conclusion: thus, most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating

As per me answer is B because earlier in the past they tried each wild animal to domestic that was worth of domesticating. So those who got domesticated are no longer wild animals, and those were difficult to domesticate or not worthy are still wild animal. That's why if we try to domesticate the left over(not yet domesticated) wild animals now are difficult ones or non worthy ones.

(A) in spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species
Maybe, but unlikely. And it does not go as assumption.
(B) it is not much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past
Yes. If it is not true, the conclusion will not stand
(C) not all of the large mammal species that were domesticated in the past are still in existence
It is likely true. But we have to find an assumption for "most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating". Existence of animals is important globaly, but not in this passge.
(D) the easier it is to domesticate a wild large mammal species, the more worthwhile it is to do so
Same as B.
(E) of all the domesticated large mammal species in existence today, the very first to be domesticated were the easiest to domesticate
Not important for us

Why is E wrong ? Can anyone explain ?

todarmal option e is not a relevant assumption for the conclusion. even if you negate the option e it cannot break the conclusion of the passage. above, nikhilmadan87 post already explained the passage premises and conclusion beautifully with the connection to right option. hope you will clear with the concept.

Every domesticated large mammal species in existence today was domesticated thousands of years ago. That means there are some undomesticated large mammal species in existence today. Domesticating those large mammals required innumerable attempts. Conclusion of the argument is 'most large mammals in existence today are either would be difficult to domesticate or would not worth domesticating'.

Domesticating large mammals in existence today is difficult, that means, it requires innumerable attempts. Thousands of years ago, domesticating wild large mammals required innumerable attempts, now also, domesticating wild large mammals would require innumerable attempts. So, whether it is now or thousands of years ago, domesticating wild large mammals require innumerable attempts. That means, the effort to domesticate a wild large mammal is same (assumption of the argument).

Choice B says that domesticating a wild large mammal today is not much easier than it was in the past. That means, domesticating large mammals was difficult in the past, also it is difficult now. So, it is the correct answer.

Hi All

I got this one correct. But I have some doubt in eliminating option D.

Zoologist: Every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago. Since those days, people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating. Clearly, therefore, most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating.

The zoologist’s argument requires the assumption that

(A) in spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species
(B) it is not much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past
(C) not all of the large mammal species that were domesticated in the past are still in existence
(D) the easier it is to domesticate a wild large mammal species, the more worthwhile it is to do so
(E) of all the domesticated large mammal species in existence today, the very first to be domesticated were the easiest to domesticate

Is D incorrect because it compares two things that are not relevant for comparison in this case. ??
How do we negate this.?
(the difficult it is to domesticate a wild large mammal species, the less worthwhile it becomes??? Is this correct?

Answer is B.
A conclusion about "today" is drawn based on practices followed 1000 years ago.
If wild large mammals species are easier to domesticate today, then they no longer come under the category of "difficult to domesticate". They would not come under a new category "wild large mammals that are easy to domesticate'.
Then the conclusion stating -> most wild large mammals are either ( difficult to domesticate OR not worth domesticating ),
would now become -> most wild large mammals are either ( easy to domesticate OR not worth domesticating ).

Our existing conclusion would fall apart.

Zoologist: Every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago. Since those days, people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating. Clearly, therefore, most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating.

Type- assumption
conclusion - most wild large animals we see today either wouldn't be worth domesticating or would be too difficult to domesticate.

(A) in spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species- incorrect, 'each' is a bit extreme, The author merely said that early humans tried to domesticate each wild mammal worth domesticating.
(B) it is not much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past - Correct, If you negate (B), it says "it IS much easier today to domesticate wild large mammals" than it used to be. Is this an objection to the argument?
Yes. If it's much easier to domesticate wild mammals now, then some species deemed "too hard to domesticate" by early humans would now be viable candidates for domestication. That would go against the author's conclusion.
(C) not all of the large mammal species that were domesticated in the past are still in existence - incorrect, its wording is close to a legit assumption - the author is assuming that "all of the undomesticated large mammal species in existence today were in existence in the past". The author thinks that all the wild mammals we see nowadays have been evaluated by early humans
(D) the easier it is to domesticate a wild large mammal species, the more worthwhile it is to do so - incorrect, Too extreme. Be careful of "the more X, the more Y" type answers. The author doesn't need a relationship between "how easy" and "how worthwhile". He believes early humans evaluated "how worthwhile" and "how easy".
(E) of all the domesticated large mammal species in existence today, the very first to be domesticated were the easiest to domesticate - too extreme

Answer B

This is how I approached this question:

Premise 1: Every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago.

Premise 2: Since those days, people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating.

Conclusion: most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating

The conclusion clearly states that today, most large mammal species would be difficult to domesticate or not worth domesticating.

Lets look at the options:

(A) in spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species - This is already part of premise 2. An assumption is always implicit. Therefore eliminate.

(B) it is not much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past - When we negate this option it reads "it is much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past" this would break the conclusion entirely.

(C) not all of the large mammal species that were domesticated in the past are still in existence - Does not hold any bearing on the conclusion.

(D) the easier it is to domesticate a wild large mammal species, the more worthwhile it is to do so - Additional info, not required for the conclusion

(E) of all the domesticated large mammal species in existence today, the very first to be domesticated were the easiest to domesticate - Additional info, not required for the conclusion

Therefore D.

Always try to put the options into different buckets.

can someone explain why is the answer B and not A. Clearly if humans have not tried domesticationg each and every large wild mammals then can we conclude that all wild mammals in existence today are dificult or not worthwhile?
The premise says people have tried to domesticate each wild mammals that seemed worth domesticating.
So, maybe some worthy wild mammals were leftover because the people never took their chance with those mammals??

You can use the negation technique to chose between two options.
For any option to be an assumption two things are necessary :
1. It should be a new information
2. Its negation should break the conclusion. If the negation supports the conclusion or has no effect we can skip that option choice.

Conclusion : most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating.

Lets go with 'A' first -
given : in spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species
Negation : in spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have NOT tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species
This suggests that if people have not even tried to domesticate each wild animal then we don't even know whether it will be difficult or not to domesticate them. That could be easy or that could be difficult also . You were also right to think that they might have never taken a chance to domesticate few worthy wild leftover mammals. We are not sure . And thats why we can not completely say that choice breaks the conclusion .
Also, another point. This choice uses an extreme word EACH. Nowhere in the passage is mentioned that people tried to domesticate EACH wild animal ( They tried domesticating whom they think worthy of being domesticated). So this is not an assumption that the author is making.

Coming to 'B' -
given : it is NOT much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past
Negation : it is much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past
If it is MUCH easier to domesticate wild animals today then we can't say that it would be difficult to domesticate them. This now breaks the author's conclusion .

Hope this makes sense.

Negation of conclusion:

Under what condition most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be easy to domesticate and would be worth domesticating?
Given:
1) Every domesticated large mammal species now in existence was domesticated thousands of years ago
2) people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating

Answer:
When wild animals are easy to domesticate now compared to back then
and
When wild animals are worth domesticating now but earlier they weren't

Option B matches with our first assumption, but it alone isn't sufficient. Option B has to be clubbed with the second assumption we came with.

GMATNinja KarishmaB Is my logic correct?

Edit:
My logic was this:

Conclusion: "most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating."
A= most wild large mammal species in existence today would be easy to domesticate
B= most wild large mammal species in existence today would be worth domesticating
Conclusion = not(A) + not(B)
Negation of conclusion = A and B [ as negation of OR becomes AND in the Boolean algebra]

It's not 'and' but 'or' here.

Which animals were not domesticated in the past?
"The ones not worth domesticating" e.g. lions OR "the ones worth domesticating but difficult to domesticate" say wild boar.

Conclusion: Most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating.

What is the assumption?
That because in the past some were not worth domesticating so today also they are not.
Another assumption - because in the past some were difficult to domesticate, today also they are difficult to domesticate.
Another assumption - there are no wild large mammal species in existence today that were not present in the past .

Option (B) matches our second assumption and is the correct answer.



This is like saying: I tried solving the online practice set of CR one week back. I tried to solve all questions that were worth solving (say official questions). Of the ones I tried, some were too difficult (say question no. 2, 3 and 10).
So of all the questions in practice set of CR, the unsolved ones are those which are not worth solving or are too hard to solve.

What is the assumption?
- there are no new questions added in the practice set of CR in last one week.
- the non official questions have not become worth solving now.
- I have not become better now in my CR abilities to be able to solve question nos. 2, 3 and 10. (similar to option (B) in our original question)

My logic was this:

Conclusion: "most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating."
A= most wild large mammal species in existence today would be easy to domesticate
B= most wild large mammal species in existence today would be worth domesticating
Conclusion = not(A) + not(B)
Negation of conclusion = A and B [ as negation of OR becomes AND in the Boolean algebra]

Pretend that humans have tried to domesticate every wild large mammal species EXCEPT for humpback whales (because the whales did not seem worth domesticating). Of the species they tried to domesticate, some were successfully domesticated and some were not; the latter remain wild.

So we have three categories of large mammal species:

#1 - The large mammal species that were successfully domesticated.

#2 - The large mammal species that humans tried to domesticate but couldn't (so they're still wild).

#3 - The humpback whales (the species that humans didn't bother trying to domesticate because it didn't seem worth it).

That means that choice (A) is NOT true -- humans have NOT tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species. But the argument is still fine: the wild large mammal species in existence today are from groups 2 and 3 (animals that are difficult to domesticate or not worth domesticating). So (A) is not required.

(B), however, is required. Maybe humans attempted to domesticate the walrus 1,000 years ago but failed. Nowadays, thanks to 1,000 years worth of advances in science and technology, it would be much easier to domesticate the walrus. That means the walrus is a species that is currently still wild even though it is NOT currently difficult to domesticate.

This blows up the argument. It means that some of the species in group 2 might NOT be difficult to domesticate now, even though they WERE too difficult to domesticate in the past.

I hope that helps!