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

It is currently 18 Sep 2018, 20:44

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

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 32
Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2018, 21:41
Nihit wrote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.


Could anyone please explain the argument ? I didn't understand at all ... :dazed :dazed :dazed :dazed :dazed
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 11 May 2018
Posts: 109
Location: India
GMAT 1: 460 Q42 V14
GMAT ToolKit User
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2018, 04:01
Hi suelahmed,
I will give a try,
Quote:
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

The argument has two long sentences.

1. SOME environmentalists are questioning "whats wrong with exploiting the features of environment?" There are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.

These SOME environmentalists reasoned by mentioning the economic costs

2.MANY environmentalists claim that nature...blah..blah...blah

These MANY environmentalists reasoned that nature...blah..blah...blah:NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMIC COSTS

HERE SOME =MANY=1 to ALL.
Most = greater than 50% to ALL

Quote:
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

We are not judging anything here.Its out of scope.eliminate it.
Quote:
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

Here, the MANY environmentalists group talked about that nature...blah..blah...blah and ignored the economic costs. Keep it.
Quote:
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

Strong .given in the argument that some of the environmentalists talked about economic costs.So, SOME can be 1 or SOME can be all.
so not possible.eliminate it.
Quote:
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

Mentioned only!!we dont know that the only reason or not.eliminate it
Quote:
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.

OUT of scope.
eliminate E.

B is the winner.
Hope it helps
Thank you
_________________

If you want to Thank me Give me a KUDOS
"I’ve spent months preparing for the day I’d face you. I’ve come a long way, GMAT"- SonGoku

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 May 2018
Posts: 88
Location: Pakistan
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V50
GPA: 3.4
Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Aug 2018, 12:31
I chose B because that was closest I could come to inferring what the passage said.

I don't think it is a hard question per se, just that the passage itself is so confusing.
_________________

If you can dream it, you can do it.

Re: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting &nbs [#permalink] 29 Aug 2018, 12:31

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 23 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.