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

It is currently 17 Oct 2018, 00:32

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Some 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
User avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 56
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2006, 07:46
9
61
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (02:17) correct 59% (02:34) wrong based on 1468 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2012, 23:34
11
3
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.

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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1835
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2011, 07:08
32
3
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"
_________________

~fluke

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

General Discussion
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 796
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2006, 05:25
10
8
Clear B

A.Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese.
- supports the argument

B.It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
- hunters normally do not hunt more than 5% of the population. So, removing the restriction is not going to increase the number of snow geese hunted during winter. WEAKENS the argument.

C.The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years.
- we already know that population is increasing, so number of birds constituting 5% will also have increased. Does not add anything.

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

E.In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.
- irrelevant.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 227
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2011, 08:05
2
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.



I went with B. Here is my explanation -

The argument is that the 5% restriction needs to be dropped in order for people to be able to hunt more geese, thus reducing their population. If for the last several years that 5% limit has never been reached, that means hunters aren't able to kill enough geese within the full hunting season (because the population now is so large), dropping the restriction would have no effect to the population.

Hope this helps.
_________________

http://sanjuro9.tumblr.com

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2012, 23:02
6
3
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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2013, 21:03
AnChu wrote:
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2013, 21:55
2
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 335
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, 05:44
1
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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2014, 22:48
2
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2015, 22:02
hvb750 wrote:
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6954
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 07:16
1
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%...

_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 205
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 09:21
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

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6954
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2016, 09:29
1
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
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3032
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, 17:31
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").
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3624
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2017, 05:16
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?
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Check our new About Us Page here.

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2027
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2017, 20:00
4
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 @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

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 in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

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 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 82
Location: Australia
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2017, 01:51
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Posts: 8
Location: Canada
Some species of Artic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2018, 07:43
2
Some species of Artic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Artic 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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 63
Re: Some species of Artic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2018, 07:59
B.
The restriction has already been violated. So there will be no impact if it is removed

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Some species of Artic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases &nbs [#permalink] 10 Apr 2018, 07:59

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 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  


Copyright

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

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

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