Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
28 Nov 2023, 02:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
64% (01:58) correct
36%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 214
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The Kraew reef is a diverse underwater ecological system that has yet to be officially protected by wildlife protection authorities. Local inhabitants of the area claim that fencing off the reef to preserve it is an unfair act since doing so will prevent them from being able to access the site freely. At the moment, damage is being done to the reef by speedboats and jet skis being driven directly over it by some of the inhabitants. Closing off the area is a necessary action if the reef is to survive in the long-term.
Which of the following, if true, supports the argument's conclusion?
A. Underwater ecological systems are damaged by a wide variety of external factors.
B. When tourism and public interest are reduced, funding for the protection of a certain area, or facility, can become problematic.
C. Closing off a marine area is costly and may result in an increase in taxation of inhabitants of the area, or an entrance fee to be paid by visitors.
D. A similar reef some 250 kilometres from Kraew is estimated to need more than a century for its recovery from the damage caused by unmonitored visiting.
E. The banning of motor boats and jet skis from natural habitats would prevent some of the damage being done to ecological systems around the world.
Which of the following, if true, supports the argument's conclusion?
A. Underwater ecological systems are damaged by a wide variety of external factors.
B. When tourism and public interest are reduced, funding for the protection of a certain area, or facility, can become problematic.
C. Closing off a marine area is costly and may result in an increase in taxation of inhabitants of the area, or an entrance fee to be paid by visitors.
D. A similar reef some 250 kilometres from Kraew is estimated to need more than a century for its recovery from the damage caused by unmonitored visiting.
E. The banning of motor boats and jet skis from natural habitats would prevent some of the damage being done to ecological systems around the world.
hr198
Joined: 20 Jun 2023
Last visit: 24 Apr 2026
Posts: 18
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Bangladesh
Schools: Broad'26 (A$$$) UC Riverside'26 (A$$$)
GRE 1: Q162 V158
GPA: 3.29
WE:Sales (Consumer Packaged Goods)
28 Nov 2023, 03:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Since all other options seem unrelated to the conclusions, I have chosen D. Is it correct?
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
03 Dec 2023, 19:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The Kraew reef is a diverse underwater ecological system that has yet to be officially protected by wildlife protection authorities. Local inhabitants of the area claim that fencing off the reef to preserve it is an unfair act since doing so will prevent them from being able to access the site freely. At the moment, damage is being done to the reef by speedboats and jet skis being driven directly over it by some of the inhabitants. Closing off the area is a necessary action if the reef is to survive in the long-term.
Which of the following, if true, supports the argument's conclusion?
A. Underwater ecological systems are damaged by a wide variety of external factors.
Incorrect.
To solve this Conclusion Strengthening question, first break down the argument. The first three sentences are premises which provide factual data; the last sentence is a suggested action and future implication presented by the author. This should be recognized as the conclusion:
- Premise A: the Kraew reef is not protected by authorities
+
Premise B: people living in the area are against the reef being closed off
+
Premise C: people in the area are damaging the reef by driving speedboats and jet skis near to it
=
Conclusion: to prevent the reef from being destroyed, the area must be closed off
Possible assumption: damage done by the inhabitants must be serious
Strengthening Data: ?
You are required to find data that supports the statement that the reef must be closed off to preserve it. The correct answer could be one that confirms the argument's assumption.
This answer choice weakens the conclusion by diminishing the gravity of the damage done by local inhabitants, and stressing that there are many ways in which such a reef can be damaged. However, your goal is to find a statement that strengthens the conclusion.
B. When tourism and public interest are reduced, funding for the protection of a certain area, or facility, can become problematic.
Incorrect.
This answer choice is only relevant if we assumes that if the area is closed off, public interest will decrease. This may not be the case, but if it is, this answer choice weakens the conclusion which supports the closing off of the area. Remember, you are looking for a statement that strengthens the conclusion.
C. Closing off a marine area is costly and may result in an increase in taxation of inhabitants of the area, or an entrance fee to be paid by visitors.
Incorrect.
Although the author doesn't seem to care much for the local inhabitants, this answer choice weakens the conclusion by presenting a negative side of the closing-off plan the author promotes.
D. A similar reef some 250 kilometres from Kraew is estimated to need more than a century for its recovery from the damage caused by unmonitored visiting.
This answer choice strengthens the conclusion by providing an example of another case with similar characteristics. In this example, we are given a cause-and-effect relationship: unmonitored visiting -> severe, long-lasting damage. The conclusion favors the closing-off the area and, therefore, monitoring visits to the reef, and this example supports that position.
E. The banning of motor boats and jet skis from natural habitats would prevent some of the damage being done to ecological systems around the world.
Incorrect.
To solve this Conclusion Strengthening question, first break down the argument. The first three sentences are premises which provide factual data; the last sentence is a suggested action and future implication presented by the author. This should be recognized as the conclusion:
Premise A: the Kraew reef is not protected by authorities
+
Premise B: people living in the area are against the reef being closed off
+
Premise C: people in the area are damaging the reef by driving speedboats and jet skis near to it
=
Conclusion: to prevent the reef from being destroyed, the area must be closed off
Possible assumption: damage done by the inhabitants must be serious
Strengthening Data: ?
You are required to find data that supports the statement that the reef must be closed off to preserve it. The correct answer could be one that confirms the argument's assumption.
At best, this answer choice is too general and neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. Alternately, proving that motor boats and jet skis ban are sufficient to save the reef may mean that closing off the area is unnecessary, therefore weakening the conclusion. Either way, it's not what you're looking for.
