In.2001 the Peruvian government began requiring tourists to

Premise - In.2001 the Peruvian government began requiring tourists to buy expensive permits to hike the remote Inca Trail, which goes to the ancient city of Machu Picchu. The total number of permits is strictly limited; in fact, only 500 people per day are now allowed to hike the Inca Trail, whereas before 2001 daily visitors numbered in the thousands

Conclusion - The Peruvian government claims that this permit program has successfully prevented deterioration of archaeological treasures along the Inca Trail.

Anything which strengthen the conclusion is our answer. Option D is our answer

Is this a 700 level question? Somehow I felt it to be easy..

what is the assumption for this question?
how D validate that assumption?

pls, explain.

Hi Thang

Premise - In.2001 the Peruvian government began requiring tourists to buy expensive permits to hike the remote Inca Trail, which goes to the ancient city of Machu Picchu. The total number of permits is strictly limited; in fact, only 500 people per day are now allowed to hike the Inca Trail, whereas before 2001 daily visitors numbered in the thousands

Conclusion - The Peruvian government claims that this permit program has successfully prevented deterioration of archaeological treasures along the Inca Trail.

Any option which strengthen the conclusion i.e proves that the permit program has successfully prevented deterioration of archaeological treasures along the Inca Trail is our answer
.

(D) Since 2001, Incan ruins similar to Machu Picchu but not on the Inca Trail have disintegrated at a significantly greater rate than those on the Inca Trail. (This options shows that other tourist place similar to one in the premise, which had no permit system deteriorated at a greater rate than Machu Picchu, thus proving that permit system helped Machu Picchu from deterioration)

Hope this helps !

Guys, hope you can help with my question.
I am really confused by this type of questions.
I always see in explanations, that if something happened with A this does not mean that it will happen with B. And here its the opposite. How do we know that the visitors of both places have the same influence on the sites? In fact we have to assume that the customer base is the same, of the the sevreinity of influence for both sites by visitors is the same.
Is it ok to make an assumption while choosing an answer?

The only small, tiiiny little thing that always bothered me about this question was the following:

Do we know that these other trails have unlimited tourists for sure?

I understand the concept. To strengthen the causal claim, let’s see what happens when the cause is removed. If the effect (“prevent deterioration”) is absent also, then we have more faith in the author’s claim.

But it’s not entirely clear whether the other trails have some measure in place to limit the number of tourists per day.

Because they are “similar” trails, I can see how these trails might have the same, large numbers of visitors. But we know nothing about any kind of permit program that may or may not be in place on these “similar” trails.

Anyway, through process of elimination (and understanding what the question is trying to do), the answer is D

Posted from my mobile device

I thinks the answer is E. As mentioned above, we cannot be sure that the two sites are similar enough. Maybe the first site disintegrated more because it was way older or built with other materials. There is absolutely no indication that it could be the program to reduce deterioration. This rules out D.

What E is doing is ruling out the possibility that a fall in the number of tourists rather than the program is reducing deterioration. In other words, it is eliminating the possibility that even without the program no deterioration would produce.

Experts
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

I would be interested to know what others think as well.

I missed that perspective. It does sound promising.....

Edit: I was able to stumble across my old book and find the explanation.

(D)CORRECT
The more rapid deterioration of similar ruins elsewhere supports the claim that the permit program has helped prevent deterioration of Inca Trail ruins. Notice that this evidence does not rise to the level of absolute proof; other differences between the ruins might explain the different rates of deterioration. However, this evidence clearly supports the hypothesis that the permit program was successful.

(e) irrelevant. Without the permit program, it is possible (though far from certain) that the number of tourists hiking the Inca Trail would have risen together with the total number of tourists visiting Peru. However, an increase in the number of tourists on the Inca trail would not necessarily have led to greater deterioration of archeological treasures on the trail.



Posted from my mobile device

In.2001, the Peruvian government restricted number of tourists to 500 and started giving expensive permits
to hike the remote Inca Trail.
Before 2001 daily visitors to the trail numbered in the thousands.

Claim: This permit program has successfully prevented deterioration of archaeological treasures along the Inca Trail.

We need to strengthen the claim.

(A) Since 2001, tourist guides along the Inca Trail have received 50% to 100% increases in take-home pay.

Irrelevant.

(B) Villages near Machu Picchu have experienced declines in income, as fewer tourists buy fewer craft goods and refreshments.

Irrelevant. The point is whether the deterioration of archaeological treasures has been prevented.

(C) Many of the funds from the sale of Inca Trail permits are used to staff a museum of Incan culture in Lima, Peru's capital, and to hire guards for archaeological sites without permit programs.

Irrelevant how the money is used for things besides the Inca trail.

(D) Since 2001, Incan ruins similar to Machu Picchu but not on the Inca Trail have disintegrated at a significantly greater rate than those on the Inca Trail.

Correct. You are given that the other "similar" ruins have disintegrated at a far greater rate. That means the actions taken to preserve the Inca trail are working.
The use of the word "similar" is enough to say that the Inca trail and others are comparable.

(E) The total number of tourists in Peru has risen substantially since 2001, even as the number of tourists hiking the Inca Trail has remained constant.

Total number of tourists in Peru is irrelevant. We know that before 2001, thousands of people were visiting the Inca trail. Now only 500 are visiting every day. So deterioration has been prevented.
How many people actually visited Peru before and now is irrelevant.

Answer (D)

Should not E be the answer as less tourists are using Inca trail because of the permit ? In option D, how do we know that other locations were used by tourists?


Posted from my mobile device

anurag2018

While I agree that the question might not be the “tightest” from a logical standpoint, the Manhattan Prep answer is what it is.

Keep in mind it is not an official question so don’t lose sleep trying to reconcile this question with other official ones. Stick to any takeaways/patterns you learned from official questions.

But again I’m not an expert so what do I know lol

Posted from my mobile device

I completely second you anurag2018 , I have the same doubt and picked E. Though I am not sure if we are missing out on something.

Hi team, I'm not clear at all with the explanations provided.
The passage states "the Peruvian government began requiring tourists to buy expensive permits... only 500 people per day are now allowed to hike the Inca Trail".

Here, two inferences are possible:
- Permits have a cost (and they are expensive)
- Max 500 people are now allowed to hike there.

Even if before 2001 daily visitors numbered in the thousands, we cannot conclude that now the number are around 500, because an expensive permit is necessary and the cost may discourage people from hiking, so the number could be everything, even 100 or 50, and we don't know if 500 is sufficient enough to prevent the deterioration.

Option E introduce a premise that could counter the conclusion: "The total number of tourists in Peru has risen substantially since 2001", but then explains that the number of tourists hiking the Inca Trail has remained constant. As a result, we can rule out the possibility the the number of people has increased, possibly leading to an increased number of people hiking there (we just need to strengthen the conclusion).

By contrast, option D seems to go against the conclusion, which says: "this permit program has successfully prevented deterioration[i] of archaeological treasures along the Inca Trail[/i]".

(D) Since 2001, Incan ruins similar to Machu Picchu but not on the Inca Trail have disintegrated at a significantly greater rate than those on the Inca Trail.

From choice D we can infer that Inca Trail has disintegrated indeed, while the conclusione clearly says that the program has prevented the deterioration.

Am I missing something?
Regards.

KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep

1. We don't know whether the Incan ruins in D, has implemented the permit policy or not
2. Conclusion is - Govt claim that this permit prevented deterioration ...option D says have less disintegrated, so goes against the information
3. I marked E because even after the increase in tourist population, they have been able to limit the permit and hence implementation is correct with an output of prevented deterioration i.e
Correct execution of policy + output, thus strengthens

The expected result of the policy is not that only 500 people are allowed to go; the expected result is that deterioration is prevented. 'Only 500 people are allowed to visit' is the policy. The success of the policy will be measured by the amount of deterioration.

We are given that since 2001, permit policy has come into being and "only 500 people per day are now allowed to hike the Inca Trail."
When they say 'prevent disintegration' in the conclusion, they mean deterioration because of visitors. There will always be some natural deterioration of all artefacts.
Hence, option (D) is reasonable when it says that others have deteriorated more.

Option (E) is incorrect. No matter how many tourists visit Peru, 500 tourists have been allowed to visit the trail. But the success of our program depends on whether the deterioration is less because of fewer tourists.

Option D just tells us that the other trail is similar to this one but does not say anything about -

1.) Whether there is a Permit required on that other trail or not?
2.) Whether the deterioration is caused by the natural processes there or by tourists visiting?

There is no way to tell that the permit is saving the Incan trail here.