Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases

Take a closer look at (B):


(B) does not suggest that hunters have gone over the 5% limit for many years. Instead, it indicates that they have NOT gone over that limit for many years. That’s why (B) says it has been many years since the season was closed early. For that reason, (B) indicates that removing the 5% limit will have little effect, and it's the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!

Hi - quick question on (d) ?

Per (D) - snow geese are increasing in population. This "increased population" is settling where ?

Is this "increased population" settling in the artic or the southern region ?

I think as per D, this "increased population" is showing up in the artic region.

If true, the fact would weaken the conclusion.

Why ? Even if you remove the hunting restriction, hunters cant get to the 'increased population' [all of which are settled in the artic region]

Hunters are NOT in the northern region but in the southern region.

(D) tells us that "snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons," but does not specify WHERE those wintering grounds are. They could be even farther south than the current location. There's just no way of knowing the location of this new wintering ground, so we can't assume that it is out of reach for hunters.

That's why (D) doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion.

I hope that helps!

KarishmaB if hunting season ends if and when hunters reach 5%, doesnt option B mean that since hunting season ended earlier, then hunters reached 5% earlier , i.e. before end of hunting season

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

This means that for many years, hunting season has NOT closed earlier than scheduled. So for many years, the 5% quota has not been reached.

'It has been many years since A happened' means 'A has NOT happened for many years.'

At its heart, this is a simple question that reminds us that setting and/or removing limits will only have a noticeable effect if people are actually reaching or exceeding those limits in the first place.

For example, removing a speed limit of 500 miles per hour on the highway would be pointless and have no impact on people's driving, since no one can drive that fast anyway.

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

This means that for many years, hunting season has NOT closed earlier than scheduled. So for many years, the 5% quota has not been reached.

'It has been many years since A happened' means 'A has NOT happened for many years.'

Thanks KarishmaB it make better sense now for the front part of the sentence B.
My confusion is if it hasn't reached the target limit, then why is being closed earlier than the scheduled date? Could you help clarify? Thanks.

MartyTargetTestPrep could you help too? Thanks

Hi Kimberly77.

Take another look.

You just said that the hunting season "has NOT closed earlier than scheduled."

We are looking for something that undermines the argument.
We are looking for something that says that dropping the restriction will have no effect and that is exactly what (B) does.

It tells us that the restriction level is anyway not reached so dropping the restriction is useless.

You are probably wondering that why does the author suggest dropping the restriction when the restriction level has not been reached in many years?
It is a case of missing information. The author doesn't know that the 5% numbers haven't been reached in many years. He reads that there is this restriction under which the hunting season ends if and when hunting reduces the population by five percent and he suggests to drop the restriction. Then we bring in new information for him in our option that the restriction anyway hasn't played a role in many years. Hence his argument weakens (or falls apart if you wish).

GMATNinja, KarishmaB, generis - Please help!

This argument recommends relaxing the restriction on hunting of Snow Geese as a possible solution for the recovery of other species, and the question asks you to weaken it.

My pre-thought answers were along the lines of-

Okay, I need a reason why relaxing the restriction won't work..
1. Okay maybe the Snow Geese is too much in number that relaxing restrictions alone as a solution won't work..
2. The restriction, if relaxed, might drastically reduce Snow Geese population..

But the answer is along the lines of - The hunting never closed before the scheduled date from many years.
I am NOT saying that the answer should always be along the lines of the pre-thought ideas, but this one just threw me off completely.

When I read this, I thought okay, maybe the hunters weren't able to bring down the population by 5% before the scheduled date, so it makes sense for the hunting to continue past the deadline as well. But it is not actually weakening the conclusion.

But the reasoning given is, since the deadline weren't being respected, the restriction was never helpful to begin with. I mean, of course after you read the explanation, you tend to think it makes sense, but I could not have come to this conclusion even if I had the luxury of time. How do you work on the answer when you are faced with such a situation? Just bail on the question?

All good questions!

First, I'd be cautious about anticipating the answer choice ahead of time. As you noticed in this question, the correct answer won't always be something you'd come up with on your own.

So what should you do instead? Well, after making sense of the argument, try taking each answer choice on its own merits. Ask yourself: how would this fact impact the argument? Let's try that with answer choice (B):


If this were true, it would mean that during the hunting season, hunters were reducing the population by less than five percent. How would that impact the conclusion? Well, dropping the restriction probably wouldn't lead to a hunters killing more geese. Even if the restriction were raised to 10%, for instance, we know that hunters were routinely killing less than 5%.

Put another way, the restriction wasn't holding back hunters from killing more geese. So dropping the restriction wouldn't lead to them killing more. For that reason, (B) undermines the argument and it's correct.

Overall, anticipating answer choices can be dangerous and is often more trouble than it's worth. For many questions, it will be impossible to pre-think the correct answer, which could make it harder to spot the correct answer when you see it (or easier to fall for a wrong answer if it resembles what you were expecting). For more on that, check out this video.

I hope that helps!

Understanding the argument -
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. - Fact
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. - Although it introduces contrast, the statement is a fact.
Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover. - Conclusion.

Option Elimination - Weaken

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. - When and Why these restrictions were imposed is out of scope.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. - so, if the hunting season was set from Month 1 to 6, but hunters stopped hunting in Month 2, then removing the limitation will not help. Or maybe the hunters just hunt 1% of snow geese when the limitation was 5%, so even if we remove the limitation, hunters may still hunt 1%. ok.

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. - Classic trap. The argument talks about percentages and this talks about the numbers. Out of scope.

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. - Goes in the direction of the opposite of what we need. If they recolonize more ground, then removing restrictions should help. At best, a strengthener.

(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. - If they face no natural predation, then maybe only hunting can help. At best, it can be a strengthener and not the weaker we need.

Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun KarishmaB MartyMurray

Several expert posts have mentioned that (B) can be taken as: ''hunters were killing less than 5%'', hence weaken.
i can't understand how (B) can be read that way. Please help!!

Below is my understanding of (B):

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

1. Above option can also mean two things: Since that time, hunting season getting closed on ''scheduled date'' or beyond ''scheduled date''
2. Stimulus didn't mention any ''scheduled date'', so we don't know that hunting didn't go beyond the sheduled date.

In no way, i would have inferred that ''hunters were killing less than 5%

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

Option (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), if true, means there is a scheduled date otherwise. So season closes on that date. The restriction ("hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by 5%") can only lead to early closing. What happens if 5% limit is not reached? Nothing. There is a scheduled date for closing of the hunting season and it closes on that date. There is no reason to assume that it will go beyond the scheduled date.