Editor: Articles in Gardening Magazine often spur sales of the plants

IMO the answer is E
The policy's intended effect is to protect the wildflowers by minimizing sale of the plant. However, E tells us that if they actually promote sale of the plant, revenues from the sales can support the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.

hmm, solved this question in 1 minute and selected B as the correct option, just by reading the words "no alternate ways". I thought that the magazine's policy to prevent the publishing of articles will still not have the desired effect as plant sellers will continue to plunder native plant population due to lack of any alternate inexpensive ways.

As option B is wrong, I think because it is too wide in scope. "wares" is a general term which may include rare wild flowers, and to what proportion we do not know. Also the conclusion is that the magazine's policy will reduce demand, which in turn will reduce supply, hence decreasing the plundering of native plant populations. And "reduce in demand" is untouched by option B.

Looking at the OA: E, I am not totally convinced. E has far reaching and probable consequences, hence should be a weak weakening option. Though by POE it may be the only option left.

Thanks parker.

i was stuck between C and E........your help is crucial

I may be overcomplicating things, but why is it not B?

If the wild flower advertisements the magazine prints for these plant sellers has a neglibible effect on the sales or if 90% of buyers come from cheap internet advertisements, would the magazine's actions have no effect?

Thanks for any help!

Editor: Articles in Gardening Magazine often spur sales of the plants they describe, particularly among people new to gardening. Accordingly, we will no longer publish articles or accept advertisements praising the beauty of rare wildflowers. Most such plants sold to gardeners have been difficult to propagate under cultivation, so plant sellers often collect them in the wild. Our new policy is part of our efforts to half this yearly plundering of our native plant populations.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the wisdom of the magazine's new policy as a way of pursuing the intended effect?

A. The purchasers who bought wild plants once time and killed it will not buy wild plants anymore. This sentence prove that the more people buy wild plant, the more plants are killed. It is enought that one person kills one plant
B. Plant sellers who sell rare wildflowers have no reasonably inexpensive alternate way to offer their wares directly to new gardens. => Irrelevant one, quite strengthen.
C. The demand for rare wildflowers rarely exceeds the number of such plants that can be collected in the wild by plant sellers. => Clearly strengthen by increasing the demand of wild plants
D. The propagation of rare wildflowers often depends on the plant's interaction with other organisms in their environment such as plants that create suitable soil conditions or insects and birds that disperse seeds. => If native plants were taken from the forests, they will not adapt to the new conditions to reproduce new plants => native plant population decrease, strengthen one

E is too clear, I will not explain any more.

E is direct OA here. Magazine is worried that the wildflower plants will be robbed from forests by plant sellers, if their cultivation is not possible, but if selling of these plants can fund new technologies which support cultivation of these plants, then leads to an win win situation

Wisdom or the argument of the magazine: Stopping the praise of rare wild flowers in the magazine will reduce the plundering of such plants from the wild as they are propagated only in the wild.

The underlined part is the premise and the rest is the conclusion. To weaken this argument you can either give a reason why the plundering will not reduce or give a reason why the plants need not be propagated only in the wild.

We will use our technique of negating the conclusion. You can negate it in 2 ways based on the above reasoning

1. Plundering will not reduce
2. The plants need not be cultivated only in the wild

Which choice offers the best explanation for one of the above two negated conclusion? We see it is choice E as it explains how (2) can be done

Argument is :

magazine Wont publish article on wildflower -----> This act will save wildflowers


What if publishing articles on wildflowers helps in saving them ? If this is true, argument is weakened. ( As intended effect can be achieved without the stated action )

This is exactly what E is saying.

Tough one!

I tried to take notes, to bring down the passage in a logical flow:

Premise (Editor): Articles in Magazines spur sales of plants they describe.
Premise: Wildflowers have been difficult to propagate under cultivation, so plant sellers often collect them in the wild

Conclusion: No longer publish articles or ads of rare wildflowers, in order to halt plundering of native plant populations

Which AC casts the moust doubt about the plan of the magazine to halt the plundering?

A. When people new to gardening buy plants, they often fail to take adequate care of the plants that they buy and become discouraged from buying those varieties again.
Does not cast doubt, is out of scope. There can be 1000 people new to gardening every year and the plundering continues IF articles/ads are published.

B. Plant sellers who sell rare wildflowers have no reasonably inexpensive alternate way to offer their wares directly to new gardens.
Does not cast doubt because if there are no ads/articles, it can be inferred that there will be no buyers.

C. The demand for rare wildflowers rarely exceeds the number of such plants that can be collected in the wild by plant sellers.
Out of scope. If it rarely exceeds the number of such plants that can be collected, there is still the option that it sometimes exceeds the demand. So the plan is still justified right?

D. The propagation of rare wildflowers often depends on the plant's interaction with other organisms in their environment such as plants that create suitable soil conditions or insects and birds that disperse seeds.
Clearly out of scope. Does not touch any of the premises or conclusion of the passage. We have no indication of demand/offer.

E. Revenues from sales of plants collected in the wild are supporting the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.
Finally, if revenues from sales of plants collected can be used to discover low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries... then this casts the most doubt about the argument because if true, the sale of collected plant should even be fostered! Hence, the Editor should continue with articles and ads of such plants.

Conclusion : Our new policy is part of our efforts to half this yearly plundering of our native plant populations.

A. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect

Because the author believes there is only one cause, identifying another cause weakens the conclusion.

Answer : (E) Revenues from sales of plants collected in the wild are supporting the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.

Imo E

The argument tells us that advertisement of rare flower causes the sellers of such plant to collect them from wild as it is much cheaper to collect such plants form wild .The second point raised by the argument is that the magazine has many followers and what ever the magazine publishes people generally want to to get those plants published in the magazine .
Now to protect the wind rare plat that argument suggests that the magazine has to stop advertising or praising beauty of the wild rare plant so that people will not become aware of such plants.

E gives us a reason to doubt the conclusion drawn by the argument .

A is irrelevant
B actually strengthens the argument .
C strengthens the argument
D out of scope
E correct

this question does not give test takers a difficult situation in which test takers have to choose between 2 options.

E is clearly the right answer.

GMATNinja nightblade354 generis KarishmaB pikolo2510 ammuseeru gmatexam439

I had a tough time eliminating (D) and presenting my detailed analysis of the argument.


Editor of particular magazines says: the particular articles (that relate to plants description) published in the magazine
stir sales among people. These people are new to gardening.
Whether these articles increase or decrease the sale, I am not sure at this point.


I am sensing a sort of negative tone of Editor against publishing these articles. These articles praise the beauty of
rare wildflowers. Now I read on to know the reasoning behind his claim/ opinion.


OK, cool. So now I understand her reasoning. She says: since such plants are more difficult to propagate under cultivation, so plant sellers often collect them in the wild.
Maybe Editor is concerned about the environment.


In support of her claim, she further says: Our new policy is part of our efforts to reduce plundering
of x plants by 0.5 x. I could also link that sales are influenced (increased) by articles in magazine



I know I am not allowed to distort the question stem much, but for better understanding (esp word: wisdom in the context of argument) I paraphrase Q stem
as below:
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the execution of plan suggested by the editor?


Am I concerned about how people care (or fail to care) about new plants they brought? Nope.
The crux of the argument is: plant sellers destroying the plants from wildlife and this is not good for the environment.
Easy out - 1


I am not concerned with motives of plant sellers. Easy out -2


Whether demand rarely or always exists is out of the scope of the argument. Easy out -3


Editor says if we do not publish articles pertaining to rare species, people will not be as aware of them. This will not motivate plant sellers to destroy the wildlife since these plants are supposedly taken from the forest. But what if that is not the case?
What if these plants do not grow well since other conditions as soil / birds that help in growth.
Then even if plant sellers sell these plants to urban people then these people will not be satisfied with purchase


How is this choice affecting my linkage:
No articles in the magazine -> People less aware of rare plants -> Less spoilage of wildlife -> Better environment

I believe I went a bit too far at few instances in terms to stay engaged in this argument (It is really a dense one, and imaging
myself to be Editor supporting environment helped to some extent. ), but it seemed to back-fire for option D/ E. May I know where I
faltered?

Wildflowers don't propagate under cultivation and hence are plundered from wild.
Articles in Magazine often spur sales of the plants they describe, particularly among people new to gardening.

Aim - To halve the plundering of native plant populations
Plan - Don't print articles on wildflower
(Since it is a new plan, the assumption is that till now the magazine was printing articles on wildflowers. Hence not printing articles may reduce the demand)

One of the options needs to describe why the plan may not lead to the aim.

(A) When people new to gardening buy plants, they often fail to take adequate care of the plants that they buy and become discouraged from buying those varieties again.

If people new to gardening have bought the plants once, the plundering is done. Even if they do not buy again, there will be more "new" people who will buy. Hence curbing the publication of articles may reduce the number of "new people" who buy wildflowers. It doesn't explain why the plan MAY NOT lead to the aim. Hence not the answer.


(B) Plant sellers who sell rare wildflowers have no reasonably inexpensive alternate way to offer their wares directly to new gardens.

If anything, it strengthens the plan. The sellers do not have any other inexpensive way to reach out to people new to gardening. So if the articles are stopped, possibly the demand of wildflowers will reduce and hence the aim will be fulfilled.

(C) The demand for rare wildflowers rarely exceeds the number of such plants that can be collected in the wild by plant sellers.

We want to REDUCE the demand so that plundering from the wild REDUCES from current numbers. Information in (C) is irrelevant to our plan.

(D) The propagation of rare wildflowers often depends on the plant's interaction with other organisms in their environment such as plants that create suitable soil conditions or insects and birds that disperse seeds.

The conditions for propagation are irrelevant. They propagate in the wild and we want to reduce the plundering there.
adkikani - Whether they survive in the gardens of people who are new to gardening is immaterial. If the new people have bought the plants once, plundering has happened. They may not buy the plants again but there will be other new people. This option is similar to option (A) as per your logic. If (A) is wrong, then this is wrong too.

(E) Revenues from sales of plants collected in the wild are supporting the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.
Revenues from sales of wild plants are supporting the discovery of tech to grow wildflowers in nurseries. If the revenues reduce, the technology may not get developed and the plundering may continue. The current plundering may actually lead to reduced plundering in the future so the plan of not printing articles may actually work against the aim.

Answer (E)

I completely agree with Karishma's reasoning here.

This question is very easy to think through if one assumes a "Plan" assumption here.

The plan here is to stop publishing advertisements and the intended effect is that it will reduce the plundering of wildflowers by the plant sellers.

Any option that is able to establish that this plan won't work would be the right answer. The question that you need to ask at every option is "Does this option harm the plan?". The only option that will say yes to that question is Option E which is the right answer.

Hope that helps.

Thanks.

Dudyala Saikiran
Byju's GMAT Expert.

The plan is to no longer publish or accept ads praising the wildflower in attempt to 1/2 the yearly plundering of the native plant populations

This is based on the fact that magazines spur sales of flowers featured in them and wildflowers are difficult to cultivate, so they are plundered in the wild.

We are asked to weaken the wisdom behind this plan.

A is incorrect as it has no effect on the plan's effectiveness. This is a mere fact about consumer's treatment of plants after they buy.
B is incorrect - just because they have no alternate doesn't justify their reason for sale. Should I sell a near extinct species of animal just because there are no other animals around me?
C is incorrect - just because demand doesn't exceed supply doesn't cause for a halt on the plundering
D is incorrect - this just justifies why people take it from the wild rather than cultivate
E is correct - revenues from sales of the wildflower are going towards innovating new cultivation methods, so it seems counterproductive to cut-off funding

Hi VeritasKarishma

Although I understand from your analysis why wrong answers are wrong, I seem not to connect dots as to why right answer is right. I understand why the wrong answers are wrong.

And this is why this question is tough. Right answer is too hard to digest.

Please find my reasoning on why E may not have any effect on the plan.


Premises -
Publish the articles - > Increase in demand/sale.
Increase in demand - > hunting of wild plants.

Thus a cause and effect is given to us in the premises.

Conclusion - Lets abandon the publishing of articles, so that we can reduce the hunting of wild plants by 50%.

To me, this conclusion is devoid of any gaps and totally flows from the premises provided.

As in the editor rightly assumes that absence of cause (publishing of articles) will lead to absence of the effect.

In terms of casual reasoning, this is a very valid inference.

So let us look at option E now.

Option E says,
Funding from the sales of such plants may actually help save the wild plants in future.

This suggests it is okay to keep publishing the articles. In this sense it makes editor to reconsider their claim.

But -
Even if the funding reduces, how does it matter?
Because we already know if we stop publishing the articles, the demand will come down and plant sellers may not really need to go hunting these plants.


So the point I want to raise is that - Whatever the case may be with option E, the conclusion still stays intact.

I know its an official question and there is very little to debate about the correctness of it, I still would like to hear from you about what you think of my reasoning and if its wrong, where do I go wrong.

Thank you

Posted from my mobile device