GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Although conservationist has have failed to increase the size of plot, there should be some other benefit incurred from the conservationist activity.


Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
- no role of conservationist

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
- no role of conservationist
- irrelevant

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
- Although, they failed to increase the size of plot, it may be possible the conservationist activity led to increase in the vitality of the surviving shrubs
- CORRECT

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
- this option is talking about the other animal species

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.
- irrelevant

The thing we need to explain, why the project found a failure in 2000 was announce success in 2010, especially after being abandoned.

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.

This choice has very little effect because it implies that this pollinator was already there but has been just recently discovered. Regardless of discovery, that pollinator was already around the shrub. A doesn’t say that the pollinator was introduced in 2000s or whatever. So incorrect.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.

Usually pieces of information in the stimulus are given to be used to come to the right choice.
The shrub survives only if it predominates – that’s, if it’s main plant in a certain tract.
We know that there is a densely populated 5-acre plot. It follows that in this plot the shrub is predominant and in order for it to move to other areas of the forest, those areas must be cleared of other plants. What can help with this? Surely deforestation.
If a piece of forest is cleaned and then left untouched, then the shrub has the opportunity to move to that area.
For this to happen, some of the shrub should survive during the deforestation, and the stem says that there was encroachment, not total destruction. Moreover, during the deforestation, trees and bigger plants may be cut off while small growings such as shrubs may remain intact, making them the sole thing to populate that area if untouched. For this reason I chose B

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.

We have no information about how vitality improved during these 20 years. Did it decrease in 2000, bringing to abandonment, or was it linear, in which case it has nothing to do with the argument? Without additional information this choice is useless.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.

For this answer choice to explain the paradox, many things need to be assumed. For example, that this animals devoured all the competitors of the shrub making it the predominant plant. However, it can be all the way around as well. So useless choice.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

This choice simply has nothing to do with the argument whatsoever. Did pharmaceutical company help the cultivation of the plant? Did it make any other efforts? Untold, hence out.

So B

Notice that the argument implies that from 1990 to 2000 there was no benefit achieved as the conservationists failed to increase the plot size and the shrub was densely populated in only this plot. However by 2010 this project was a deemed a success and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species. This could be because of the following reasons (prethinking) -
1. Some new factors came into the mix (weather, water, nutrients in soil, symbiotic nature of being surrounded by shrubs etc) and the shrubs reacted well to the same.
2. Probably the time that they took to react was more than 10 years and thus in 20 years there was significant improvement. They may still be behaving how they were in isolation even when the conservationists created a densely populated plot and perhaps only with time were they able to react well to the change.

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
-> Was the aim to identify unique/ unkown pollinators? No.
(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
->Does this impact the conclusion that the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area? No.
(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
-> Yes - Similar to prethinking point 2.
(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
-> This does not impact the conclusion that the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.
(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years
-> So? Does this mean they were no longer threatened species? No.

Correct Option : C

Pharaphase:

In 1990,
<botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub>

<this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant> (Important Point)

By 2000,
<the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot>


2010,
<the project was hailed a success> (Why?)

true, best explains why the project was later considered a success



(C)
The vitality of

- The surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly

Because >
<this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant>

- as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub

- from levels observed in 1990.

Posted from my mobile device

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
I can not understand how this discovry could help?
1. if insect was already there then it should have been pollinating
2. Conservationalists left in 2000, so even if insect was dsicovered then these people didn't do anything later as mentioned in argument- project was suspended, because they had left the place

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
then why was not in success in late 2000s; atleast to some extend?

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
this options seems to explain the reason. But we are more interested to know about why project was failure first and then success

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
This is good option.
Animals came there, eat plants except this rare flowering . Other plants quantity reduced. This rare plant became in dominance then flourish.
this could be one explanation that is possible

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs
is 10 years.
what happened in 2000s/ we are not interested to know what happned later.

Final answer: D

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
No reason why the project would be hailed a success becuase of this

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
No reason why the project would be hailed a success becuase of this

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
No idea whether the project was behind this

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
This is the closest answer. There isn't any better answer to this

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

No reason why the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species for this

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. Incorrect

but cant explain how population of the flower increase or have minimum levels

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. Incorrect

no info about increasing population of the flower

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. Correct

can be an explanation

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. Incorrect

irrelevant

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. Incorrect

additional info

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. --This does not ensure that the shrub will be conserved

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. ---This too does not ensure shrub will be saved from declining

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. -- Correct

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. --Irrelevant with animal species

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. --Irrelevant

IMO C

In 1990, botanical conservationists were sent to Madagascar, tasked with saving a declining population of a rare flowering shrub found sporadically in a single 20-acre tract of forest. Because this shrub can survive only in environments in which it is the predominant plant, the goal was to start with a densely populated 5-acre plot and then section off an increasingly larger area of forest once the shrub had achieved a sustainable rate of growth. By 2000, the project was abandoned, the conservationists having failed to increase the size of the original plot. Yet a decade later, the project was hailed a success, and the shrub was no longer seen as a threatened species in the area.

Which of the following, if true, best explains why the project was later considered a success?


(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s. Then it should have been successful in 2000 itself

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched. doesn't explain the success in 2010

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990. A good explanation

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area. argument is dealing with a particular shrub

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years. Out of scope

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
REJECTED - If true, it does not explain how the shrub became predominant in the environment. This option does not tell us that the unknown pollinator pollinated only the flowers of this shrub, and not other plants.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
RIGHT ANSWER - THe deforestation removed the oter plants, trees and shrubs in the region, but not the rare flowering shrub, since the plot remained 'experimental', as mentioned in the option. Since the land was left untouched, the plant gew and became dominant.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
REJECTED - This merely tells us that the shrub has become dominant - not how it becamse dominant.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
REJECTED - This does not tell us ho the animals helped the shrub become dominant inthe area. DId the animals eat the other plants and leave this shrub - we do not know.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.
REJECTED - This is completely irrelevant to how the shrub becamse fominant in its area, from a sporadically growing plant.

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.

Irrelevant - does not say where the pollinators was discovered or if it was introduced to or found among the planted shrubs.

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.

Not mentioned or at all implied.

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.

Correct. This is all about the shrubs' ability to thrive. Provides a measurable improvement and level of success.

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.

Irrevelant - other species of animals thriving in the area has no bearing on the shrubs.

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.

Irrevelant - and would probably mean that the shrubs would have decreased in population from being utilized for this pharmaceutical.

Posted from my mobile device

Best explains why the project was later considered a success?

(A) A previously unknown pollinator of the shrub was discovered in the early 2000s.
But it doesn't confirm that the pollinator is or will be responsible for increasing the shrub population!

(B) In the 1990s, deforestation led to encroachment of the experimental plot, after which the land was left untouched.
What if it was left untouched? It nowhere mentions in the passage that these shrubs will grow well without anyone's intervention!

(C) The vitality of the surviving shrubs in 2010 was demonstrated to have improved significantly, as measured by the percentage of pollinated flowers per shrub, from levels observed in 1990.
Yes, if the vitality of the shrubs was improved, this gives us a reason to think that the shrub population is on a rising curve!

(D) Several animal species endemic to the island, their own populations threatened, took refuge in the experimental plot once it was abandoned, and by 2010, most of these species were thriving in the area.
So what? It is too bold of us to assume that the animals had something to do with the increase in shrub population!

(E) Shortly before 2010, a compound derived from the leaves of the shrub was approved for use in pharmaceuticals, and the process of gaining governmental approval for new medical drugs is 10 years.
This is irrelevant!

IMO, (C)!

Official Explanation (OE) from AndrewN is posted HERE.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.