It is currently 23 Jan 2018, 23:49

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp

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

Hide Tags

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2012
Posts: 205
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 750 Q47 V47
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2012, 10:58
New to all this, so bear with me. I believe the answer is B.

The argument is that the restriction in place for hunting the geese is not allowing hunters to bring down the population of geese. This is supported by "Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."


Essentially: Geese displace Arctic bids - kill more geese - recover Arctic birds
Roadblock to achieve above: Hunting Restrictions


(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. (This would support, not undermine)
[color=#00ff00](B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. (The restriction has not made hunters kill less geese. In fact, they can kill more geese under this restriction. Lifting the restriction will not correlate to a spike in hunting the geese. Correct answer)[/color]
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. (insignificant)
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. (insignificant)
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. (supports the argument, not undermine)
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 860
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2013, 01:02
Can someone explain this question in detail OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 11
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V29
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2013, 08:32
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
tapdoanhp wrote:
I am not so convinced by the phrase "hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date". Do you mean that NOT hunting til the last scheduled day will secure that the geese hunted does not reach limit? What about the case that they hunt so fast that reach the limit and they have to stop hunting before the scheduled day?
I am so confused with this question. Help me please!


It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

Hi Karishma,

The restriction does really matter if the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date because the hunters have already reduced the population by five percent before the scheduled date. So dropping the restriction would help the other pecies recover, for example, increase the reduction to 10%.
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7879
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2013, 20:03
AnChu wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
tapdoanhp wrote:
I am not so convinced by the phrase "hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date". Do you mean that NOT hunting til the last scheduled day will secure that the geese hunted does not reach limit? What about the case that they hunt so fast that reach the limit and they have to stop hunting before the scheduled day?
I am so confused with this question. Help me please!


It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

Hi Karishma,

The restriction does really matter if the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date because the hunters have already reduced the population by five percent before the scheduled date. So dropping the restriction would help the other pecies recover, for example, increase the reduction to 10%.


Snow geese breed in Arctic and fly south for winter. They are proliferating which is bad for other birds. Southern hunters reduce the number of geese when they fly south. There is a restriction in place that if the population of the geese that came reduces by 5%, hunting will stop. So if 100 birds flew south and 5 were hunted, hunting will stop. If 1000 birds flew south and 50 were hunted, hunting will be stopped. The argument says that we should drop this restriction to help other birds flourish (conclusion). Then hunters will hunt many more birds and reduce their numbers. Then the other Arctic birds will flourish.

We need to weaken it and say that dropping the restriction will not help other Arctic birds flourish. Even if this restriction of 'not hunting after 5%' is dropped and hunters are allowed to hunt as much as they want, the population of geese will still not reduce.

(B) says that the it has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. This means that for many years, the 5% limit has not been reached. So southern hunters anyway hunt less than 50 birds when 1000 birds fly down south. So whether you have the restriction or not, the number of geese hunted is the same. Usually hunters hunt less than 50 birds. So even if you drop the restriction and tell them that they can hunt as much as they want, it will not help since they don't want to hunt much. They usually hunt only a little bit. So the geese population will not reduce by dropping this restriction.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 148
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2013, 03:20
D seems convincing. Since the question asks us to weaken the argument, identify the conclusion "dropping this restiction would allow the other species to recover"

We need to find a reason to prove that the other species may not recover even though restriction over hunting is dropped. So if the snow geeze population spreads through other areas, then relaxing restrictions over hunting in southern region will not help other species to survive as the threat of snow geeze still exists.

Hope I made some sense. :-D
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Pay attention to every detail"

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7879
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2013, 20:55
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
cssk wrote:
D seems convincing. Since the question asks us to weaken the argument, identify the conclusion "dropping this restiction would allow the other species to recover"

We need to find a reason to prove that the other species may not recover even though restriction over hunting is dropped. So if the snow geeze population spreads through other areas, then relaxing restrictions over hunting in southern region will not help other species to survive as the threat of snow geeze still exists.

Hope I made some sense. :-D


(D) is not correct.
"wintering grounds" implies the southern region (where they fly for winter). In south, they have re-colonized regions they had not occupied for a while now. This doesn't imply that dropping the restriction and letting hunters hunt as much as they want to will not decrease their population. The hunters hunt in the southern region. Nothing says they don't hunt in the regions where the geese have recolonized now.

Understand the argument: Snow geese populate the Arctic (i.e. the north pole region) and are displacing other species there. They move south in winters where there numbers are reduced due to hunting. There are restrictions on hunting. The argument says 'remove these restrictions so that the number of geese reduces more so that other species can survive. Saying that geese are recolonizing larger parts of the southern region doesn't imply that dropping restrictions will not help.

In fact, if anything, it may make the argument a little stronger. If the geese are occupying more southern areas, hunting grounds may become easily accessible to more hunters and dropping hunting restrictions may actually help more!
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 148
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2013, 23:25
B makes sense to me now after following all your posts.

The main point with D is "snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds". Even after recolonization, the snow geeze will be still in southern region, helping the hunters to catch them more easily once the restrictions are lifted off. So rather than weakening the conclusion, choice D strengthens it.

Thank you Karishma. Great explanation.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Pay attention to every detail"

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 150
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2013, 18:11
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
antiant wrote:
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.



Please submit an expert post on this Q.

:shock:
_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 150
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2013, 18:21
Bluelagoon wrote:
Karishma,
Lets say the hunting season is from Jan to June and for many years the hunters reach the 5% goal in april. How does this weaken the argument that If we drop the restriction altogether than it will help other species.

In D , it is stated that they have moved on to a different location so dropping the restriction will have no affect.



I agree with you; right answer must be D.

:-D
_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: FTW
Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 12
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Leadership
GMAT Date: 09-27-2014
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Venture Capital)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2013, 21:00
OA is B

It occurred to me that in (D), the region that we are talking about here is southern vs. Arctic, which might not effectively have anything to do to affect the conclusion.
However, with (B), since the hunting season is ending before the scheduled time, that means hunters are reaching the max 5% and there still has been been an increase in the geese population. Therefore, dropping the restriction will also do no good.
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 358
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2014, 04:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
Conclusion:
Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Reasoning:
Here's a causal reasoning in that dropping the hunting restriction would allow the other species [arctic birds] to recover. Thus, any other claim that disproves the relationship works. Look for: 1) alternative causes 2) no cause -> effect 3) cause -> no effect 4) reverse relationship 5) undermining data.

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. Opposite answer - Strengthen. If hunting limits were imposed + hunting has reduced population over five percent, then dropping the restriction would likely allow the other species to recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. OK - This weakens the conclusion in that if the cause happened [dropping the restriction had occurred], then there would be no effect [species would not have recovered] (because there's already too many geese).

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. Opposite answer - Strengthen. If the number of snow geese taken by hunter has grown + a sharp increase in snow geese are displacing bird of less vigorous species, then dropping the restriction would allow the other species to recover. A lot of different nouns to keep track of makes this choice confusing.

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. Out of scope. Whether or not the snow geese had the grounds before the Arctic birds, the main claim still stands that dropping the hunting restriction would help.

(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. Opposite answer - Strengthen. If the snow geese had no natural predation, then dropping the restriction would allow the other species to recover.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 358
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2014, 04:48
reetskaur wrote:
OA is B

It occurred to me that in (D), the region that we are talking about here is southern vs. Arctic, which might not effectively have anything to do to affect the conclusion.
However, with (B), since the hunting season is ending before the scheduled time, that means hunters are reaching the max 5% and there still has been been an increase in the geese population. Therefore, dropping the restriction will also do no good.


Hi reetskaur,

Your reasoning for B above is backwards. The hunters have not reached their 5% max. Therefore, dropping the restriction would do no good.
I hope this helps.
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 353
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2014, 08:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
WE HAVE TO FIND AN ANSWER WHICH PROVES THAT THAT EVEN IF hunting season IS PERMITTED BEYOND THE reduction in the population of geese by five percent, the population would not be reduced to the extent that Arctic birds are not threatened anymore.....

what if the wintering grounds are not fixed and the birds surprise the hunters by changing to new locations for wintering.......

clear "D".....

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons....CORRECT...



KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE.......
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 19
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V38
GPA: 3
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2014, 01:56
I would say C.

C says that the increase in hunting has no effect to control the growth and it clearly undermines the argument that increase in hunting would cut down the population of geese which would in turn save other species.

As I have just started preparing, there is a good chance that I might be wrong. If that's the case, kindly explain why it cannot be C.

Cheers,
Govind
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7879
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2014, 21:48
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
govindsowrirajan wrote:
I would say C.

C says that the increase in hunting has no effect to control the growth and it clearly undermines the argument that increase in hunting would cut down the population of geese which would in turn save other species.

As I have just started preparing, there is a good chance that I might be wrong. If that's the case, kindly explain why it cannot be C.

Cheers,
Govind


Actually (C) is not correct.

It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

(C) doesn't tell us how dropping the restriction would impact the geese population. It just tells us what has happened in the past - the number of geese hunted has been increasing. If anything, it might strengthen our conclusion if the number of geese hunted is close to 5% of the population. When the population decreases by 5%, if the restriction is dropped, chances are that more geese will be hunted and other species will recover. We have to show how even after dropping the restriction, the other species may not recover.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 19
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V38
GPA: 3
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2014, 22:02
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
govindsowrirajan wrote:
I would say C.

C says that the increase in hunting has no effect to control the growth and it clearly undermines the argument that increase in hunting would cut down the population of geese which would in turn save other species.

As I have just started preparing, there is a good chance that I might be wrong. If that's the case, kindly explain why it cannot be C.

Cheers,
Govind


Actually (C) is not correct.

It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.

(C) doesn't tell us how dropping the restriction would impact the geese population. It just tells us what has happened in the past - the number of geese hunted has been increasing. If anything, it might strengthen our conclusion if the number of geese hunted is close to 5% of the population. When the population decreases by 5%, if the restriction is dropped, chances are that more geese will be hunted and other species will recover. We have to show how even after dropping the restriction, the other species may not recover.


Ah. I see it now. Need to get working to avoid such blunders. Thanks a lot for the explanation. :)

Cheers
Govind
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 263
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2014, 18:08
Ugh! I just took this question in my GMATPrep practice exam session and eliminated B, because of irrelevance. Even after I read B again, it sounds so convoluted and seems to be intentionally written (mainly because of the "being") such that most can not understand it. I can vouch that the OA is B though.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2014, 14:49
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
vdadwal wrote:
Karishma,
Lets say the hunting season is from Jan to June and for many years the hunters reach the 5% goal in april. How does this weaken the argument that If we drop the restriction altogether than it will help other species.

In D , it is stated that they have moved on to a different location so dropping the restriction will have no affect.


Option B tells you that the restriction has not come into effect since many years. "It has been many years since ..." means the restriction came into effect many years ago and since then, it has NOT come into effect. So if the hunting season is from Jan to June, it has been closing in June only. This means that even if hunters hunt for the entire hunting season, they still do not reach the 5% limit. So removing the restriction will have no effect.


I think this explanation is quite clear, I misunderstood the "it has been many years since…“ . The correct understanding is that it happened before,but never since then. So in the recent several years, the hunting season has not been closed earlier, which means the hunters do not reach the 5% for years.
Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 943
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 May 2015, 20:34
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

Conclusion : Dropping the restriction will increase the population of species of arctic birds which are predated by geese.

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese -> Irrelevant

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date ->
This option says that there are so many geese that every year, the hunting season ends (with the 5% restriction) earlier than scheduled date.
So the population productivity is more and cannot be decreased drastically by dropping the restriction -> Correct


(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years -> Supports the conclusion

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons
The premise doesn't say that hunters cannot go to "recolonized wintering grounds" so doesn't impact the argument

(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation -> Irrelevant
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 128
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q51 V27
GMAT 3: 680 Q50 V31
GMAT 4: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 5: 760 Q50 V42
Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2015, 00:39
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
AnChu wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
It's a weaken question. The golden rule is to focus on the conclusion and try to weaken it.
What is the conclusion here? " Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover."

You have to try to weaken it i.e. give reasons why even after dropping this restriction, it is unlikely that other species will recover.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

Option B tells you that the restriction doesn't really matter much. It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season closing down early. This means that the population of geese is enough so the restriction hasn't come into effect in the recent years. This implies that even if the restriction is removed, it is likely that there will be no change in the situation. This definitely weakens our conclusion that dropping the restriction will help other species to recover.

Hi Karishma,

The restriction does really matter if the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date because the hunters have already reduced the population by five percent before the scheduled date. So dropping the restriction would help the other pecies recover, for example, increase the reduction to 10%.


Snow geese breed in Arctic and fly south for winter. They are proliferating which is bad for other birds. Southern hunters reduce the number of geese when they fly south. There is a restriction in place that if the population of the geese that came reduces by 5%, hunting will stop. So if 100 birds flew south and 5 were hunted, hunting will stop. If 1000 birds flew south and 50 were hunted, hunting will be stopped. The argument says that we should drop this restriction to help other birds flourish (conclusion). Then hunters will hunt many more birds and reduce their numbers. Then the other Arctic birds will flourish.

We need to weaken it and say that dropping the restriction will not help other Arctic birds flourish. Even if this restriction of 'not hunting after 5%' is dropped and hunters are allowed to hunt as much as they want, the population of geese will still not reduce.

(B) says that the it has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. This means that for many years, the 5% limit has not been reached. So southern hunters anyway hunt less than 50 birds when 1000 birds fly down south. So whether you have the restriction or not, the number of geese hunted is the same. Usually hunters hunt less than 50 birds. So even if you drop the restriction and tell them that they can hunt as much as they want, it will not help since they don't want to hunt much. They usually hunt only a little bit. So the geese population will not reduce by dropping this restriction.


Great explanation Karisshma.

Actually, I think many of guys here (including me initially) misunderstand the meaning that choice B conveys:
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

We all agree that the hunting season is closed because: The 5% limit is reached before scheduled date OR The scheduled date comes.
At first, I thought the meaning of choice B is that the hunting season has been closed earlier than the scheduled date for many years.
However, the correct meaning of choice B is that for many years, the above case has not been happening.. For example, let's say 2010 was the last year that the hunting season was closed earlier than scheduled date. So for 5 years, from 2010 to 2015, the hunting season has been closed at the scheduled date and the hunting down rate was below or equal to 5% at the closing date.

Then, choice B actually weakens the argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp   [#permalink] 18 Aug 2015, 00:39

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 90 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.