It is currently 18 Dec 2017, 10:53

Final Week of R1 Decisions:

CHAT Rooms | MIT Sloan | McCombs 


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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 1

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

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2015, 03:11
fluke wrote:
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.


Good question.

"B" tells us that the hunters are not able to hunt even 5% of the snow geese population before the hunting season. Thus, lowering the restriction, or in other words, increasing the percent decrease to any value greater than 5 won't help at all.

Scenario:
100000- Snow geese available
Hunting restriction says: Can't hunt more than 5% of 100000 i.e. 5000 in the hunting season.
Fact: Hunters are not able to reach 5000 target by the close of the hunting season.

Argument: Increase the maximum number of geese that could be hunted to a value greater than 5%, say 10%. Even if the law allows the hunter to hunt 10,000 geese, it wouldn't do any good. If the hunters are not able to reach 5000 hunting target, they will definitely not reach 10,000 target. Thus, "B" undermines the argument/suggestion.

Ans: "B"



But in that case, aint we ignoring the line "The hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent," which I guess implies that hunting season is active only until 5% birds are killed. And since the hunters kill 5% birds earlier than the estimated end of season ("hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date"), is'nt option B indirectly strengthening the argument for removal of these restrictions ?

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

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7804

Kudos [?]: 18160 [0], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2015, 21:02
hvb750 wrote:
fluke wrote:
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.


Good question.

"B" tells us that the hunters are not able to hunt even 5% of the snow geese population before the hunting season. Thus, lowering the restriction, or in other words, increasing the percent decrease to any value greater than 5 won't help at all.

Scenario:
100000- Snow geese available
Hunting restriction says: Can't hunt more than 5% of 100000 i.e. 5000 in the hunting season.
Fact: Hunters are not able to reach 5000 target by the close of the hunting season.

Argument: Increase the maximum number of geese that could be hunted to a value greater than 5%, say 10%. Even if the law allows the hunter to hunt 10,000 geese, it wouldn't do any good. If the hunters are not able to reach 5000 hunting target, they will definitely not reach 10,000 target. Thus, "B" undermines the argument/suggestion.

Ans: "B"



But in that case, aint we ignoring the line "The hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent," which I guess implies that hunting season is active only until 5% birds are killed. And since the hunters kill 5% birds earlier than the estimated end of season ("hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date"), is'nt option B indirectly strengthening the argument for removal of these restrictions ?


Say the hunting season is from 1st Dec to 28th Feb. It closes early if population decreases by 5%.

(B) It has been many years since that limit has reached
means for many years that limit has NOT been reached (I think you misunderstood option (B))
So option (B) is telling you that the rule has NO impact since the 5% limit anyway is not reached.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18160 [0], given: 236

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1853

Kudos [?]: 1076 [0], given: 90

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2015, 11:19
Answer B
The population is Snow geese is large enough that reduction of population by 5 % has not occured in many years before the end of the hunting season.
So ,even if the restriction is lifted , it is highly unlikely to change the situation .
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 1076 [0], given: 90

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 9

WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2015, 04:39
It should be A. A is the only statement which points out pulling out the restrictions 'may' backfire.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 9

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2015, 20:32
Work up

goose kills birds.
humans kill (up to 5% "estimated" limit of goose)
Conclusion: remove 5% limit, so more goose are hunted and thus less birds hunted

What would undermine is something that says even if we remove the limit the goose population won't be affected.



(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.
just FYI, doesn't affect anything. we are looking for something that says goose population won't be affected, this actually hints at goose population would sharply decline
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
says geese are hunted in winter, for example say winter ends in March. and people will hunt geese till they kill 5% of the population. This statement says it's been years since they were able to kill off 5% of the geese before hunting season or estimated "scheduled" date. so even if they lift the 5% hunting limit, it won't have an affect because they aren't ever able to reach the 5%
(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
if anything this supports not weakens the statement. this says more geese are being hunted every year. but doesn't talk about what percent of geese, for example 800 geese killed last year out of 900 vs. 900 killed this year vs 2000 available geese.
(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons.
has nothing to do with hunting. who cares if the geese are at old wintering grounds or new ones. doesn't matter if they are being hunted in your back yard, or on the other side of the town
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.
talks about "natural predation" i.e. some other animal eating the goose. doesn't talk about hunting



This is kind of like your mom saying you can only eat 5% of your Halloween candy in 1 day. And you saying I wish my mom didn't have this 5% dumb rule than you'd be able to eat a lot more candy! and statement (b) is basically saying you aren't even able to eat 5% of your candy in a day, so that would weaken the argument (lifting the 5% limit)

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Location: United States
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, International Business
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V45
GPA: 3.84
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Nov 2015, 13:19
I spent like 6 minutes on working it out. struggled very bad between B and E.

B indicates killing won't help in general, so at this point, it weakens the argument, which assumes killing will help:

it said: every year a constant rate of killing happens whereas the population still sharply increases. if killing is relevant, the the increase should be in check

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 03:40
Hi Experts / chetan2u / daagh / mikemcgarry / aditya8062,

Please help me with this question.

Lets discuss the question stem first in a layman language-

In a particular area there are species 1. Arctic birds and 2. snow geese. Snow geese eat arctic birds. In that area there are hunters who kill snow geese, but hunters can't kill if they have already killed 5% of geese population eg- if there are 100 geese and hunters have already killed 5% of 100 ( 5 geese) and now the population is 95, so they can't kill remaining 95 geese.
But now question arises if hunters can't kill remaining 95 geese than these 95 geese will going to kill Arctic birds and so the population of arctic bird will going to decreases. Therefore, if we lift the ban and allow hunters to to go ahead and kill remaining 95 geese then they can't feed on Arctic birds and hence the population of Arctic birds will going to increase.

Conclusion--Bold part
Now we need to weaken the conclusion means we need to find something which shows that after killing remaining 95 geese the population of Arctic birds will NOT increase............What could be the reason...? :roll:

1) if hunter kill geese which feed on species Z. So the population of species Z will increase as geese will be killed...What if species Z feed on Arctic birds-- This will weaken.

Now lets look at options-

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

It says that that hunting season has been closed EARLIER THAN SCHEDULED DATE.
How is this weakening..?

The scenario discussed by 1 of GMAT aspirant is--

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

100000- Snow geese available
Hunting restriction says: Can't hunt more than 5% of 100000 i.e. 5000 in the hunting season.
Fact: Hunters are not able to reach 5000 target by the close of the hunting season.

Argument: Increase the maximum number of geese that could be hunted to a value greater than 5%, say 10%. Even if the law allows the hunter to hunt 10,000 geese, it wouldn't do any good. If the hunters are not able to reach 5000 hunting target, they will definitely not reach 10,000 target. Thus, "B" undermines the argument/suggestion.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Its only mentioned that the hunting season closed many years before the scheduled date.
Nowhere is mention that the hunters were not able to kill 5000 geese... we can also say that might be hunters have already killed 5000 before the closure of scheduled date..


Please assist, how does B weakens conclusion.
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Prakhar

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
D
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5380

Kudos [?]: 6165 [1], given: 121

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 06:16
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
PrakharGMAT wrote:
Hi Experts / chetan2u / daagh / mikemcgarry / aditya8062,

Please help me with this question.

Lets discuss the question stem first in a layman language-

In a particular area there are species 1. Arctic birds and 2. snow geese. Snow geese eat arctic birds. In that area there are hunters who kill snow geese, but hunters can't kill if they have already killed 5% of geese population eg- if there are 100 geese and hunters have already killed 5% of 100 ( 5 geese) and now the population is 95, so they can't kill remaining 95 geese.
But now question arises if hunters can't kill remaining 95 geese than these 95 geese will going to kill Arctic birds and so the population of arctic bird will going to decreases. Therefore, if we lift the ban and allow hunters to to go ahead and kill remaining 95 geese then they can't feed on Arctic birds and hence the population of Arctic birds will going to increase.

Conclusion--Bold part
Now we need to weaken the conclusion means we need to find something which shows that after killing remaining 95 geese the population of Arctic birds will NOT increase............What could be the reason...? :roll:

1) if hunter kill geese which feed on species Z. So the population of species Z will increase as geese will be killed...What if species Z feed on Arctic birds-- This will weaken.

Now lets look at options-

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

It says that that hunting season has been closed EARLIER THAN SCHEDULED DATE.
How is this weakening..?

The scenario discussed by 1 of GMAT aspirant is--

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

100000- Snow geese available
Hunting restriction says: Can't hunt more than 5% of 100000 i.e. 5000 in the hunting season.
Fact: Hunters are not able to reach 5000 target by the close of the hunting season.

Argument: Increase the maximum number of geese that could be hunted to a value greater than 5%, say 10%. Even if the law allows the hunter to hunt 10,000 geese, it wouldn't do any good. If the hunters are not able to reach 5000 hunting target, they will definitely not reach 10,000 target. Thus, "B" undermines the argument/suggestion.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Its only mentioned that the hunting season closed many years before the scheduled date.
Nowhere is mention that the hunters were not able to kill 5000 geese... we can also say that might be hunters have already killed 5000 before the closure of scheduled date..


Please assist, how does B weakens conclusion.


Hi PrakharGMAT,

The conclusion says that if we lift the restrictions the population of arctic birds will increase as snow geese feeds on it.
Th restriction on hunting snow geese comes into effect when their population has gone down by 5%, that is 5% snow geese have been killed..

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

It tells us that restriction came into play long time back, meaning the hunters have never hunted a % touching 5%.
If this restriction is lifted, the numbers hunted will not go up as the threshold % -5%- has never been reached..

So, it can be assumed that if hunters continue hunting at the same pace with or without restrictions, there will be no change in the decrease of arctic birds

Scheduled date here means WINTER..
the hunting is allowed in WINTERS, so there is a specific date at the end of winters every year, when the hunting has to stop. It will stop prior to this date if the % hunted that year has gone upto5%...

_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 6165 [1], given: 121

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 08:21
chetan2u wrote:
PrakharGMAT wrote:
Hi Experts / chetan2u / daagh / mikemcgarry / [url=http://gmatclub.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=aditya8062]
The conclusion says that if we lift the restrictions the population of arctic birds will increase as snow geese feeds on it.
Th restriction on hunting snow geese comes into effect when their population has gone down by 5%, that is 5% snow geese have been killed..

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

It tells us that restriction came into play long time back, meaning the hunters have never hunted a % touching 5%.
If this restriction is lifted, the numbers hunted will not go up as the threshold % -5%- has never been reached..

So, it can be assumed that if hunters continue hunting at the same pace with or without restrictions, there will be no change in the decrease of arctic birds

Scheduled date here means WINTER..
the hunting is allowed in WINTERS, so there is a specific date at the end of winters every year, when the hunting has to stop. It will stop prior to this date if the % hunted that year has gone upto5%...



Hi chetan2u,

Thanks for your response. I hope, I got the point :)
Let me explain what I got with an example and please correct me if I am wrong.

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


At present we are in 2016, but option B says that restriction on hunting season was imposed LONG TIME BACK lets say in 2000.
Means in 2000 hunters touched the limit of 5% and hence the restriction was imposed.
But if we talk about period 2000 - 2016 hunters haven't touched the figure of 5% and hence the restriction has not been imposed..
So, lifting restriction will NOT help---> ARGUMENT WEAKENED

I hope that's all the story.

Can you please share your opinion..?
Thanks
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Prakhar

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
D
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5380

Kudos [?]: 6165 [1], given: 121

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 08:29
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi,
You are absolutely correct now.
From last 16 years, the restriction was or rather could not be imposed due to the hunting not reaching 5%.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 6165 [1], given: 121

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 08:30
chetan2u

Thank you very much :)
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Prakhar

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 35

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 4

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Schools: Oxford"18 (D)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V39
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 16:08
For me the answer is B. Simply, the rule has never been used which means removing the rule has no effect, since the existence of rule and removal doesn't make any difference.
Present situation --- Rule exists but doesn't effect as conditions not satisfied
After situation ----- Rule removed and hence doesn't effect
Anyway it doesn't effect. so weakens
_________________

Get up and work hard. No other Mantra to succeed

It's not how hard you can hit that matters, what matters is how hard you can get hit and smile back. Kick life back as hard as it kicks you.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 364

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 211

Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2016, 03:41
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.


:o
A unique pattern of reasoning in weakening and assumption, but very logical
I knew about alternative cause, opposite effect, dubious premise, fraudulent data, placebo effect.
I just found a new one in this question. NON EXISTENT CAUSE, TERMINATED CAUSE, MUTED BIRTH, DISCONTINUED EXECUTION OF POLICY.
Clearly it would sound silly saying you would discontinue an already discontinued policy.
If people currently are not following the policy anymore, dropping the policy wouldnt change a thing.

So it's like saying, The hunting policy has been discountinued, therefore discountinuing the hunting policy will have a great effect. How can you discontinue an already discontinued policy or a policy that now has a null effect and say it will have an effect?
Bad news: I failed this question in my EP1 :evil: !! :cry: !!!!!!!

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 211

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jan 2015
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 10 [1], given: 53

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2016, 00:37
1
This post received
KUDOS
I failed this question during my CAT. But when at the review I did it right. The correct answer is very elegant:
The stem says that there is RECENT sharp increase...
Option B - The restriction has been in place for many years, then the logical conclusion is that it cannot be a reason (and therefore a solution) for the RECENT sharp increase.

Kudos [?]: 10 [1], given: 53

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2016, 03:57
Dropping the restriction alone will not contribute significantly, they should also extend the season and provide more scope for hunting these geese. A mere 5% would not cause a major difference. This is supposed to be breeding ground for the geese. They would reproduce at higher rates say 50%. (A male and a female with one baby geese, if they are capable of delivering multiple geese then the reproduction rate increases). Thus an extended window would aide in hunting down more geese thereby increase the habitat of other species.

Answer is B.

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

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2016
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 44

Concentration: Accounting
GMAT 1: 640 Q51 V24
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2016, 06:08
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.

D only tells you that the increasing population has led to colonizing other grounds too. It just tells you that the population has increased a lot and the geese are spreading. It doesn't say that removing the restrictions will not help.
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.

Now your option B tells you that the restrictions are ancient and are meaningful today. They haven't come into effect for many years. Then removing the restrictions won't help, isn't it?
On the other hand, option D says that the geese population has increased and now they are also using those grounds in the southern regions that they had not used for many years. How does it imply that removing restrictions will not help? It doesn't imply that.[/quote]


Hello Karishma,
We can interpret option B in another way also: that the hunters were able to reach 5% well before the scheduled closing date and this is why hunting season has been closed earlier than the scheduled. In this case dropping the restriction will be helpful for the survival of other birds.
Please explain where I am going wrong.

Thank you

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 44

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 7

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2016, 10:19
The sentence grammatically so wrong that I can't make head and tail of the argument

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 7

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3227

Kudos [?]: 3657 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2016, 16:31
Dark_Horse wrote:
The sentence grammatically so wrong that I can't make head and tail of the argument


The passage is grammatically alright. Which part of the passage seems grammatically incorrect to you?

(Do you find problem understanding the use of the word "winter"? "Winter" here is used as a verb to mean "spend the winter somewhere").

Kudos [?]: 3657 [0], given: 22

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 10

GMAT 1: 630 Q50 V25
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2017, 08:50
Why not D....as it clearly mentions the reason of not reducing the number of snow geese by dropping the restriction...experts please help

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 10

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 151

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 136

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
GPA: 3.91
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2017, 12:03
rbcola wrote:
B. Because it appears that no one is interested in killing the geese, so , lifting restrictions is not going to change the status quo.


Does that really mean by the fact that If "It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date." is true, then "no one is interested in killing the geese"? It might also be the case that the hunters are so interested in killing the geese population that they reach the target of killing 5% well before the scheduled end date of the season. Please let me know if you think otherwise.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 136

Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp   [#permalink] 06 Mar 2017, 12:03

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®.