GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Jun 2019, 22:04

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# People in the tourist industry know that excessive development

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 751
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2018, 22:59
1
6
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:06) correct 42% (02:28) wrong based on 242 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists, a fact of which people in the tourist industry are well aware. People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry. Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.

The reasoning in the arguments is most vulnerable to:

(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.

_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 293
Re: People in the tourist industry know that excessive development  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2018, 08:02
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists, a fact of which people in the tourist industry are well aware. People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry. Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.

The reasoning in the arguments is most vulnerable to:

(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.(even if support is provided for the claim, doesn't make the argument vulnerable)
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.( argument suggests that excessive development causes the damage to the environment, but people would never knowingly damage the seaside environment)
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.( No, it talks about people is tourist industry)
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.( Yes, argument is vulnerable to this possibility,because argument clearly says that people in tourist industry wound not knowingly damage the the industry, but they may unknowingly damage the industry)
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.( No)

Will go with choice D

Thanks
_________________
IMPOSSIBLE IS JUST AN OPINION
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2300
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: People in the tourist industry know that excessive development  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jan 2019, 02:04
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists, a fact of which people in the tourist industry are well aware. People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry. Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.

Type- flaw
Core- People in the tourist industry would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.
Pre-thinking- just because the tourist industry wouldn't knowingly do something doesn't mean that they might not do it unintentionally

(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.- incorrect; Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.- incorrect; the argument is explicitly about whether the tourist industry will cause damage to the environment
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.- incorrect; the argument never shifts from a few members to all members
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.- Correct
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.- incorrect; the argument does not claim any event as inevitable

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 7
Re: People in the tourist industry know that excessive development  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2019, 20:33
Conclusion: Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.

The conclusion clearly mentions the word 'knowingly damage'. So I think 'unknowingly damage' scenario is Out of scope here.

One flaw I noticed here:

Excessive Development -> Env damage
Excessive Development -> Tourist Distractions
from this we can't conclude Env Damage -> Tourist Distractions

Intern
Status: when you say,"I can or I can't", Both times you are right!
Joined: 26 Nov 2018
Posts: 31
Location: India
Re: People in the tourist industry know that excessive development  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 11:38
sups3906 wrote:
Conclusion: Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.

The conclusion clearly mentions the word 'knowingly damage'. So I think 'unknowingly damage' scenario is Out of scope here.

One flaw I noticed here:

Excessive Development -> Env damage
Excessive Development -> Tourist Distractions
from this we can't conclude Env Damage -> Tourist Distractions

"Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment": is just a statement

people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have NOTHING to fear from the tourist industry: is a flawed conclusion because of not considering the unintentional effect of tourist industries.

Hope it Helps!

Thanks = Kudos
Re: People in the tourist industry know that excessive development   [#permalink] 25 Mar 2019, 11:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by