Last visit was: 14 Dec 2024, 20:01 It is currently 14 Dec 2024, 20:01
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
boeinz
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Last visit: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 228
Own Kudos:
1,266
 []
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 228
Kudos: 1,266
 []
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
sher676
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Last visit: 12 Apr 2012
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 99
Kudos: 347
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
hgp2k
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Last visit: 02 Nov 2022
Posts: 192
Own Kudos:
776
 []
Given Kudos: 13
 Q50  V35
Posts: 192
Kudos: 776
 []
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
aagar2003
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Posts: 14
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hgp2k
boeinz
how do u dismiss E?

Because the stringent penalty will only decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers, and not stop poachers from killing them. Whereas wild life protection committee wants to protect the elephants from getting killed by poachers. This is the reason committee is planning to cut the tusks of elephants and make them worthless to poachers.

in my opinion, a stringent penalty can also be a death penalty too which can mean that proachers will think twice b4 they actually do it.
User avatar
hgp2k
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Last visit: 02 Nov 2022
Posts: 192
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
 Q50  V35
Posts: 192
Kudos: 776
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aagar2003
hgp2k
boeinz
how do u dismiss E?

Because the stringent penalty will only decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers, and not stop poachers from killing them. Whereas wild life protection committee wants to protect the elephants from getting killed by poachers. This is the reason committee is planning to cut the tusks of elephants and make them worthless to poachers.

in my opinion, a stringent penalty can also be a death penalty too which can mean that proachers will think twice b4 they actually do it.

Well, we cannot assume anything.
User avatar
aagar2003
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Posts: 14
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hgp2k
aagar2003
hgp2k
how do u dismiss E?

Because the stringent penalty will only decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers, and not stop poachers from killing them. Whereas wild life protection committee wants to protect the elephants from getting killed by poachers. This is the reason committee is planning to cut the tusks of elephants and make them worthless to poachers.

in my opinion, a stringent penalty can also be a death penalty too which can mean that proachers will think twice b4 they actually do it.

Well, we cannot assume anything.

By assuming it, I meant to say it is raising doubts and when A is available without any doubt, why would I go with the one I am hesitant.
User avatar
boeinz
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Last visit: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 228
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 228
Kudos: 1,266
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OA is A. Thanks for your contributions!
User avatar
atomy
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Last visit: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 43
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 43
Kudos: 28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
more stringent penalties on poachers is out of scope and hence E is an incorrect option..
User avatar
ykaiim
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Last visit: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 520
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 40
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Posts: 520
Kudos: 5,644
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think the OA is incorrect.

The is no direct conclusion in the stimulus. So, derived conclusion - committee will cut the tusk of elephant to protect them.

Is there any other way the committee can protect the elephants - Yes:
1. Strict penalties
2. Relocation of elephants
3. Poachers get shot on sight (as someone above mentioned)

We have to find the assumption why they plan to do this. Only A and E match this assumption. Let's check them:

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them.
This is the first premise. Close contender.

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers.
I think this should be the OA. If they think that this penalty would not stop them to kill the elephants then they should go ahead with the plan.

boeinz
Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected elephants from being killed by poachers by cutting off the elephants’ tusks.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them

(B) tuskless elephants pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do elephants that have tusks

(C) tuskless elephants can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators

(D) elephants are the only animals poachers kill for their tusks

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers
User avatar
hellcheese
Joined: 08 May 2010
Last visit: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 7
Given Kudos: 1
Schools:INSEAD, Harvard
Posts: 7
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ykaiim
I think the OA is incorrect.

The is no direct conclusion in the stimulus. So, derived conclusion - committee will cut the tusk of elephant to protect them.

Is there any other way the committee can protect the elephants - Yes:
1. Strict penalties
2. Relocation of elephants
3. Poachers get shot on sight (as someone above mentioned)

We have to find the assumption why they plan to do this. Only A and E match this assumption. Let's check them:

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them.
This is the first premise. Close contender.

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers.
I think this should be the OA. If they think that this penalty would not stop them to kill the elephants then they should go ahead with the plan.

boeinz
Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected elephants from being killed by poachers by cutting off the elephants’ tusks.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them

(B) tuskless elephants pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do elephants that have tusks

(C) tuskless elephants can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators

(D) elephants are the only animals poachers kill for their tusks

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers


E seems to imply that there are already penalties, which apply to poachers. But there wasn't any mention of penalties in the argument.
User avatar
Silvers
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Last visit: 13 Nov 2012
Posts: 212
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 28
Schools:DukeTuck,Kelogg,Darden
 Q48  V36 GMAT 2: 730  Q50  V38
Products:
Posts: 212
Kudos: 170
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hellcheese
ykaiim
I think the OA is incorrect.

The is no direct conclusion in the stimulus. So, derived conclusion - committee will cut the tusk of elephant to protect them.

Is there any other way the committee can protect the elephants - Yes:
1. Strict penalties
2. Relocation of elephants
3. Poachers get shot on sight (as someone above mentioned)

We have to find the assumption why they plan to do this. Only A and E match this assumption. Let's check them:

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them.
This is the first premise. Close contender.

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers.
I think this should be the OA. If they think that this penalty would not stop them to kill the elephants then they should go ahead with the plan.

boeinz
Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected elephants from being killed by poachers by cutting off the elephants’ tusks.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them

(B) tuskless elephants pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do elephants that have tusks

(C) tuskless elephants can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators

(D) elephants are the only animals poachers kill for their tusks

(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers


E seems to imply that there are already penalties, which apply to poachers. But there wasn't any mention of penalties in the argument.

Agree with you A it is! E clearly says more stringent penalties, the focus here is more! plus in the conclusion the author is moving towards stopping poachers not reduce the incidents!
avatar
nishantarora
Joined: 18 May 2010
Last visit: 31 Jan 2012
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 13
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
As per the CR Bible, Premise indicator is "Since".

question type "Must be True",pg 49 of bible.( CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG).
"tusk, worthless, poacher" is what i want to see in an answer choice.

Objective 8 of bible, separate into contender and loser answers.

A seems to be the correct answer.
D seems seems to make no connection
B C are out of scope
E seems to suggest the polar opposite of the objective, i.e. prevent elephant from being killed.
User avatar
BlueRobin
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Last visit: 01 May 2015
Posts: 395
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 157
Posts: 395
Kudos: 196
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ans is A
because the committee assumes that poachers wont kill elephants without tusks

For E, if the committee assumes that imposing more stringent punishment on pachers will not be effective then the elephants could be moned to another place or the tusks removed so on.
User avatar
cano
User avatar
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Last visit: 14 Dec 2015
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 76
Posts: 271
Kudos: 534
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Since an elephant that has no tusk is worthless to poachers, the Wildlife Protection Committee plans to protect selected elephants from being killed by poachers by cutting off the elephants’ tusks.

The Wildlife Protection Committee’s plan assumes that

(A) poachers do not kill elephants that are worthless to them
(B) tuskless elephants pose less of a threat to humans, including poachers, than do elephants that have tusks
(C) tuskless elephants can successfully defend their young against nonhuman predators
(D) elephants are the only animals poachers kill for their tusks
(E) imposing more stringent penalties on poachers will not decrease the number of elephants killed by poachers

When the question asks you what the assumption is, you have to select an answer choice that if negated, the whole argument or conclusion falls apart.
That happens if you negate A. If poachers kill worthless elephants, then the whole plan of the WPC makes no sense.
You can continue checking other options just to make sure, even though A is quite eloquent.
B, C, and D are not directly related to the subject matter.
E is may confuse you, but is not so strong and clear as A. If more stringent penalties 'decrease' the number of elephants killed, anyways can't be compared to the plan of the WPC of stopping definitely all kills.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,002
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,002
Kudos: 902
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7163 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts