Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 08:49

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed

Author Message
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 639
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 331 [0], given: 0

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 13:45
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.

VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1444
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 284 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 16:03
eyunni wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.

I got A, though it was tough for me.
My assumption was: environmentalist is has something else in mind.
C is wrong - progress???
D is wrong because there can be other reasons that the council object the plan other than the environmentalist's concern.
E is wrong because "almost always" makes this choice weak. The environmentalists can be in the exception.
Between A and B for me. Tough choice. I picked A because B says that the real agenda is to block development. However, the stem never stated the environmentalist's agenda. It can be something else.
Director
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 875
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 891 [0], given: 33

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 18:45
eyunni wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.

Within no time, I end up with either one of the "B" or "E".

E conveys, that real concern "almost" always lies somewhere else. It is almost and not "always". So there might be some times when the concern is real!!

Thus I will choose the answer as B which should be assumed in order to negate the concerns of the environmentalists.
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 199
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 19:12
Yes between B and E as well. I chose B
Eliminated E because due to the word "solely".
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2562
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 20:06
eyunni wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.

B or E. I say E.
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1885
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 23:31
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
==> Means there're some development proposal opposed not based on environmental motive => support the conclusion
Now when we use the variance test (copyright of LSAT CR bible book), the negated answer choice reads " EVERY developement proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment." => it clearly weakens the conclusion.
A must be the correct answer.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the propose development is unrestricted or not => out

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
==> it's merely a claim ..it doesn't focus on the flow of reasoning of this passage => out

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
==> this one is also a contender but negating it doesn't weaken the conclusion ==> I favor A over E.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 23:43
E is the assumption need. If it is true that whenever people oppose a developement project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere, then it must be true that these environmentalists are not really concerned about bird-migration patterns.

I'll go for E.
Manager
Status: Post MBA, working in the area of Development Finance
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 169
Location: Africa
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 00:23
A.
B and E, though seeminlgy true, appear too general in nature.
What is the OA?
Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 12
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 04:40
laxieqv wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
==> Means there're some development proposal opposed not based on environmental motive => support the conclusion
Now when we use the variance test (copyright of LSAT CR bible book), the negated answer choice reads " EVERY developement proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment." => it clearly weakens the conclusion.
A must be the correct answer.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the propose development is unrestricted or not => out

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
==> it's merely a claim ..it doesn't focus on the flow of reasoning of this passage => out

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
==> this one is also a contender but negating it doesn't weaken the conclusion ==> I favor A over E.

Beautifully explained. I will go with A.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 639
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 331 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 07:21
laxieqv wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
==> Means there're some development proposal opposed not based on environmental motive => support the conclusion
Now when we use the variance test (copyright of LSAT CR bible book), the negated answer choice reads " EVERY developement proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment." => it clearly weakens the conclusion.
A must be the correct answer.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the propose development is unrestricted or not => out

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
==> it's merely a claim ..it doesn't focus on the flow of reasoning of this passage => out

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
==> this one is also a contender but negating it doesn't weaken the conclusion ==> I favor A over E.

laxieqv, your explanation was pretty good. However, I request you to please clarify a basic doubt in the below mentioned choices.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

Do you have any specific rule to eliminate (B) JUST BECAUSE there is a term - "real" agenda not mentioned in the stimulus? Can we apply this rule in every CR? Let me put it this way, how do you decide whether a seemingly correct answer choice is out of scope or not.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the proposed development is unrestricted or not => out

Again, do you mean that if something is not mentioned in the passage, it is out of scope? I appreciate any inputs.
Thanks.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 639
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 331 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 07:23
Artemov wrote:
A.
B and E, though seeminlgy true, appear too general in nature.
What is the OA?

OA is (A)
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 76
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 09:59
eyunni wrote:
laxieqv wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
==> Means there're some development proposal opposed not based on environmental motive => support the conclusion
Now when we use the variance test (copyright of LSAT CR bible book), the negated answer choice reads " EVERY developement proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment." => it clearly weakens the conclusion.
A must be the correct answer.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the propose development is unrestricted or not => out

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
==> it's merely a claim ..it doesn't focus on the flow of reasoning of this passage => out

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
==> this one is also a contender but negating it doesn't weaken the conclusion ==> I favor A over E.

laxieqv, your explanation was pretty good. However, I request you to please clarify a basic doubt in the below mentioned choices.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

Do you have any specific rule to eliminate (B) JUST BECAUSE there is a term - "real" agenda not mentioned in the stimulus? Can we apply this rule in every CR? Let me put it this way, how do you decide whether a seemingly correct answer choice is out of scope or not.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the proposed development is unrestricted or not => out

Again, do you mean that if something is not mentioned in the passage, it is out of scope? I appreciate any inputs.
Thanks.

Same question to you Laxie.
As normally we treat "real", "unrestricted" as supporting words. So checing evrytime for scope due to supporting words......seems very tricky to catch these. I opted "B" without without giving weightage to word "real"..
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1885
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 10:33
younggun044 wrote:
eyunni wrote:
laxieqv wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?
(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.
==> Means there're some development proposal opposed not based on environmental motive => support the conclusion
Now when we use the variance test (copyright of LSAT CR bible book), the negated answer choice reads " EVERY developement proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment." => it clearly weakens the conclusion.
A must be the correct answer.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the propose development is unrestricted or not => out

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.
==> it's merely a claim ..it doesn't focus on the flow of reasoning of this passage => out

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
==> this one is also a contender but negating it doesn't weaken the conclusion ==> I favor A over E.

laxieqv, your explanation was pretty good. However, I request you to please clarify a basic doubt in the below mentioned choices.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
==> real agenda is out of scope => out.

Do you have any specific rule to eliminate (B) JUST BECAUSE there is a term - "real" agenda not mentioned in the stimulus? Can we apply this rule in every CR? Let me put it this way, how do you decide whether a seemingly correct answer choice is out of scope or not.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
==> nowhere in the passage mentions whether the proposed development is unrestricted or not => out

Again, do you mean that if something is not mentioned in the passage, it is out of scope? I appreciate any inputs.
Thanks.

Same question to you Laxie.
As normally we treat "real", "unrestricted" as supporting words. So checing evrytime for scope due to supporting words......seems very tricky to catch these. I opted "B" without without giving weightage to word "real"..

Here am I

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.
--> I didn't mean that "unrestricted development" is out of scope. The point is C only attacks those developments which are "unrestricted"; whereas, we are not provided by the passage whether the mentioned proposed development is resricted or unrestricted. What if those proposed developments all are restricted ones?

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
( I need to go somewhere, will post my thoughts as soon as I'm back)
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1885
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 12:42
eyunni wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.

Let's analyze the argument as a whole:
@The first sentence is a premise.

@The second sentence "however ....anti-progress agenda" includes a premise and a sub-conclusion
+ The premise is "the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years "
+The sub-conclusion is "that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda."

NOTE THAT "indicates" is an indicator of a conclusion.

@the last sentence is the main conclusion.

The assumption needed in this argument is not one that directly links premises to main conclusion, but one that links the 2nd premise and the sub-conclusion.

The 2nd premise is about that environmentalists opposes every proposal in recent years.
The conclusion is that they have some disguised motives.

Now we ask the question whether B can links the premise and the sub-conclusion?
Not really. If B were " People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their anti-development and anti-progress agenda" , B would be the needed assumption.

Another point of B is that it is a shell game ..coz "development" is not equivalent to "development proposal" . A "development proposal" may indeed hamper development...what's if the GL development proposal does really do harm to the bird migration, thus isn't really a development.

Hik, it's just my 2cents Hope to see better explanation
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 76
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2007, 10:23
laxieqv wrote:
eyunni wrote:
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.

Let's analyze the argument as a whole:
@The first sentence is a premise.

@The second sentence "however ....anti-progress agenda" includes a premise and a sub-conclusion
+ The premise is "the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years "
+The sub-conclusion is "that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda."

NOTE THAT "indicates" is an indicator of a conclusion.

@the last sentence is the main conclusion.

The assumption needed in this argument is not one that directly links premises to main conclusion, but one that links the 2nd premise and the sub-conclusion.

The 2nd premise is about that environmentalists opposes every proposal in recent years.
The conclusion is that they have some disguised motives.

Now we ask the question whether B can links the premise and the sub-conclusion?
Not really. If B were " People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their anti-development and anti-progress agenda" , B would be the needed assumption.

Another point of B is that it is a shell game ..coz "development" is not equivalent to "development proposal" . A "development proposal" may indeed hamper development...what's if the GL development proposal does really do harm to the bird migration, thus isn't really a development.

Hik, it's just my 2cents Hope to see better explanation

I am sure many ppl wud hav got scared by looking into the depth of ur explainations. Surely it might have created complex also

You already have found one victim!
Re: CR_1000_999   [#permalink] 26 Sep 2007, 10:23
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Environmentalist: The complex ecosystem of the North 11 22 Oct 2008, 14:18
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 6 12 Sep 2008, 06:08
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 4 13 Aug 2008, 06:15
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 1 02 Jul 2007, 02:43
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game 3 15 Jun 2007, 21:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by