It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 02:51

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


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

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 71

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 70

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

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2017, 12:08
I have to admit the only reason why I did not choose B was because I didn't understand B. I chose C, because that was the "best" answer.

I now know why it is B. The argument is that removing the hunting restriction will lead to an increase of non-geese birds. All of the answers do not lead to an increase of non-geese birds. However, answer B shows that removing the hunting restriction does nothing, because hunters never even meet the 5% anyways. So because it shows that removing the hunting restriction will have no effect, that is the best answer

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 70

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, 12:12
chetan2u wrote:
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%...


I beg to differ you in one point. It is clearly mentioned in the argument "the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent". Means, when the threshold of 5% is reached, geese killings are stopped. So it is definitely possible that every year the hunters may have reached the threshold 5% well before the scheduled end date leading to pre-ending of the hunting every time.

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

Board of Directors
User avatar
D
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2859

Kudos [?]: 965 [0], given: 69

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2017, 04:16
arunavamunshi1988 wrote:
I beg to differ you in one point. It is clearly mentioned in the argument "the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent". Means, when the threshold of 5% is reached, geese killings are stopped. So it is definitely possible that every year the hunters may have reached the threshold 5% well before the scheduled end date leading to pre-ending of the hunting every time.


Hi arunavamunshi1988 ,

Here I found a flaw in your reasoning:

You are saying it is possible to reach that threshold and hence the preclosure. But what if it was it not the case.

Remember our aim is to weaken it. A slight dubious option could help us weaken it.

Hence, the answer mentioned is 100% correct.

Does that make sense?
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

Kudos [?]: 965 [0], given: 69

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2017, 12:21
I will go with option B: It has been many years since the restriction lead to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

Conclusion: Dropping this restiction would allow the other species to recover.
Restriction: The hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent

Option B says that even with restriction in place, the hunters are unable to kill enough Geese to reduce the population by 5%. So, dropping the restriction doesn't help to reduce the number of Geese. It clearly weakens the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 71

WE: Information Technology (Retail Banking)
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2017, 11:43
everybody comments that ans must be D.
please explain?

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 71

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 201

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 51

CAT Tests
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2017, 18:33
madindian wrote:
everybody comments that ans must be D.
please explain?


This explanation from earlier in the thread might help: https://gmatclub.com/forum/some-species ... l#p1298123
_________________

www.gmatninja.com

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 51

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 18 Aug 2016
Posts: 597

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 136

GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2017, 01:33
Request expert explanation on this one...Option B seems to me as far fetched as compared to option A..a QOTD type reply will certainly help..thanks in advance
_________________

We must try to achieve the best within us


Thanks
Luckisnoexcuse

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 136

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1223

Kudos [?]: 2033 [2], given: 462

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2017, 19:00
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Luckisnoexcuse wrote:
Request expert explanation on this one...Option B seems to me as far fetched as compared to option A..a QOTD type reply will certainly help..thanks in advance

Quote:
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.

*Note: Please try your best to ask specific questions. Let us know what you have tried and what you think about the question and answer choices. This will allow us to give better advice in a more timely fashion. General questions such as, "Explain this question!" are not as useful and often go unanswered.

Start with the conclusion: dropping the restriction (that ends the snow geese hunting season if and when hunting has reduced the population by 5%) would allow other (less vigorous) bird species to recover. Before diving into the answer choices, make sure you understand the structure of the author's argument... how does the author arrive at that conclusion?

  • Recently, there have been sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic.
  • The snow geese are displacing birds of less vigorous Arctic bird species and thus threatening those species.
  • Snow geese spend their winters in the southern regions, where they are popular targets for hunters.
  • The snow geese hunting season is currently restricted. Once hunting has reduced the snow geese population by 5%, the hunting season ends (hunters are no longer allowed to hunt at that point).
  • The author believes that ending that restriction would allow the threatened species to recover. In other words, even if hunting reduces the snow geese population by 5%, hunters should be allowed to continue hunting and reduce the population even further.

Now that we understand the argument, we need an answer choice that undermines that argument:

Quote:
(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.

It doesn't matter WHY the restrictions were implemented. We are trying to determine whether eliminating those restrictions would help the threatened bird species. Furthermore, choice (A) suggests that the snow geese population DECREASES when there are no hunting restrictions. This is exactly what the author hopes will happen. If the restrictions are eliminated, the snow geese population will decrease, helping the threatened species to recover. Choice (A) actually strengthens the author's argument and should be eliminated.

Quote:
(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 only goes into effect once hunting has reduced the population by 5%. Since the restriction hasn't actually been used in many years, this tells us that hunting hasn't led to a 5% reduction in that time. If the restriction were removed, hunting levels would probably not increase, and the snow geese population would not be reduced.

In other words, the author says, "hey, currently hunters can only reduce the population by 5%... let's remove that restriction so that they can reduce the population even further." But if hunters currently only reduce the population by LESS than 5%, there is no reason to believe that removing the restriction will have any effect. Even if the restrictions are removed, hunting will still probably only reduce the population by less than 5%. Thus, removing the restriction would not have the effect suggested by the author, weakening the argument. (B) looks good.

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

If the snow geese population is increasing faster than the number hunted each year, the population will still continue to grow. For example, if the number taken increases by 100 each year but the population increases by 1,000 each year, then the overall population will still increase by 900 each year. That would validate the problem described by the author and would not hurt the argument. Furthermore, we are already told that the snow geese population has been increasing sharply, so (C) doesn't help us.

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

This might suggest that the hunters will not be able to get to the snow geese in those recolonized areas. However, that doesn't significantly impact the author's reasoning. According to the author, if we remove the restriction, hunters in the southern regions will be able to hunt more geese and reduce their population by more than 5%. Choice (D) might suggest that the SG population might get out of control if action is not taken soon. Still, theoretically, if hunters can significantly reduce the population in the southern wintering regions, the SG population would likely be curtailed. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

We are trying to determining whether eliminating HUNTING restrictions will affect the snow geese population. Choice (E) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

(B) is the best answer.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Friendly warning: I'm bad at PMs

GMAT Ninja Wednesdays LIVE on YouTube
Join us, and ask your questions in advance!

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses | Comparisons, part I |
November webinar schedule

Kudos [?]: 2033 [2], given: 462

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 166

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 145

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

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2017, 22:10
GMATNinja wrote:
Luckisnoexcuse wrote:
Request expert explanation on this one...Option B seems to me as far fetched as compared to option A..a QOTD type reply will certainly help..thanks in advance

Quote:
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.

*Note: Please try your best to ask specific questions. Let us know what you have tried and what you think about the question and answer choices. This will allow us to give better advice in a more timely fashion. General questions such as, "Explain this question!" are not as useful and often go unanswered.

Start with the conclusion: dropping the restriction (that ends the snow geese hunting season if and when hunting has reduced the population by 5%) would allow other (less vigorous) bird species to recover. Before diving into the answer choices, make sure you understand the structure of the author's argument... how does the author arrive at that conclusion?

  • Recently, there have been sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic.
  • The snow geese are displacing birds of less vigorous Arctic bird species and thus threatening those species.
  • Snow geese spend their winters in the southern regions, where they are popular targets for hunters.
  • The snow geese hunting season is currently restricted. Once hunting has reduced the snow geese population by 5%, the hunting season ends (hunters are no longer allowed to hunt at that point).
  • The author believes that ending that restriction would allow the threatened species to recover. In other words, even if hunting reduces the snow geese population by 5%, hunters should be allowed to continue hunting and reduce the population even further.

Now that we understand the argument, we need an answer choice that undermines that argument:

Quote:
(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.

It doesn't matter WHY the restrictions were implemented. We are trying to determine whether eliminating those restrictions would help the threatened bird species. Furthermore, choice (A) suggests that the snow geese population DECREASES when there are no hunting restrictions. This is exactly what the author hopes will happen. If the restrictions are eliminated, the snow geese population will decrease, helping the threatened species to recover. Choice (A) actually strengthens the author's argument and should be eliminated.

Quote:
(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 only goes into effect once hunting has reduced the population by 5%. Since the restriction hasn't actually been used in many years, this tells us that hunting hasn't led to a 5% reduction in that time. If the restriction were removed, hunting levels would probably not increase, and the snow geese population would not be reduced.

In other words, the author says, "hey, currently hunters can only reduce the population by 5%... let's remove that restriction so that they can reduce the population even further." But if hunters currently only reduce the population by LESS than 5%, there is no reason to believe that removing the restriction will have any effect. Even if the restrictions are removed, hunting will still probably only reduce the population by less than 5%. Thus, removing the restriction would not have the effect suggested by the author, weakening the argument. (B) looks good.

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

If the snow geese population is increasing faster than the number hunted each year, the population will still continue to grow. For example, if the number taken increases by 100 each year but the population increases by 1,000 each year, then the overall population will still increase by 900 each year. That would validate the problem described by the author and would not hurt the argument. Furthermore, we are already told that the snow geese population has been increasing sharply, so (C) doesn't help us.

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

This might suggest that the hunters will not be able to get to the snow geese in those recolonized areas. However, that doesn't significantly impact the author's reasoning. According to the author, if we remove the restriction, hunters in the southern regions will be able to hunt more geese and reduce their population by more than 5%. Choice (D) might suggest that the SG population might get out of control if action is not taken soon. Still, theoretically, if hunters can significantly reduce the population in the southern wintering regions, the SG population would likely be curtailed. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

We are trying to determining whether eliminating HUNTING restrictions will affect the snow geese population. Choice (E) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

(B) is the best answer.



Honestly, answer B is difficult to comprehend. If it's written in a simpler tone, it would be easier to crack the answer as none of the other choices look good at all. But then again, if the tone of the sentence was made easier, then the question wont be a 700 level one.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 145

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 117

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

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2017, 00:51
Straight Forward B.

Hunters are hunting their hearts out, yet they CANNOT get to 5% threshold. So restriction or No restrictions, who cares?
Lets say, Now UNDER restrictions they are getting only upto 3% with their absolute best effort. It DOES NOT matter whether the restriction is 5% or 10%.
That is what B is saying, Hence the correct answer.

Why is D so attractive? Because, we are subconsciously thinking "well, since the geese have recolonized and found a different wintering grounds, withdrawing the restriction in the OLD hunting ground will not serve the purpose of reducing geese population, hence it shoueld weaken the argument"

No-where it mentions that NEW grounds are still not in OLD region, the southern regions, where they currently winter. So, recolonization does not in-fact have any bearing on a NUMBER RESTRICTION. We're not concerned with their COVERAGE of GEOGRAPHY, only total population in that region.


Regards


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.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 117

Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp   [#permalink] 29 Nov 2017, 00:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   [ 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®.