The tulu, a popular ornamental plant, does not reproduce naturally

(A) Releasing a general announcement that tulu
plants less than 30 weeks old cannot be
effectively tested for fungal rot
this might help the buyers but not the issue of testing plants before it's sold.

(B) Requiring all tulu plants less than 30 weeks old
to be labeled as such
this will not solve the problem, the problem is - the testing of plant before it get sold

(C) Researching possible ways to test tulu plants
less than 24 weeks old for fungal rot
this can be done but will take time and it's not sure that the new way will be found or not.we want something immediate.

(D) Ensuring that tulu plants not be sold before they
are 30 weeks old
so that all the plants get tested before selling.

(E) Quarantining all tulu plants from horticultural
companies at which any case of fungal rot has
been detected until those[/quote]
this is not a solution, this is an escape and will not bring any positive result.

(D) Wins

(A) Releasing a general announcement that tulu plants less than 30 weeks old cannot be effectively tested for fungal rot - This wont discourage from buying infected plants - Incorrect

(B) Requiring all tulu plants less than 30 weeks old to be labeled as such - Labelling would not solve the problem at hand - Incorrect

(C) Researching possible ways to test tulu plants less than 24 weeks old for fungal rot - Long term solution rather than a short term one - Incorrect

(D) Ensuring that tulu plants not be sold before they are 30 weeks old - This would make sure the infected plants are identified before sold - Correct

(E) Quarantining all tulu plants from horticultural companies at which any case of fungal rot has been detected until those - Extreme steps to stop infected plants sale - Incorrect

The tulu, a popular ornamental plant, does not reproduce naturally, and is only bred and sold by specialized horticultural companies. Unfortunately, the tulu is easily devastated by a contagious fungal rot. The government ministry plans to reassure worried gardeners by requiring all tulu plants to be tested for fungal rot before being sold. However, infected plants less than 30 weeks old have generally not built up enough fungal rot in their systems to be detected reliably. And many tulu plants are sold before they are 24 weeks old.

Which of the following, if performed by the ministry, could logically be expected to overcome the problem with their plan to test for the fungal rot?

(A) Releasing a general announcement that tulu plants less than 30 weeks old cannot be effectively tested for fungal rot

(B) Requiring all tulu plants less than 30 weeks old to be labeled as such

(C) Researching possible ways to test tulu plants less than 24 weeks old for fungal rot

(D) Ensuring that tulu plants not be sold before they are 30 weeks old

(E) Quarantining all tulu plants from horticultural companies at which any case of fungal rot has been detected until those tulu plants can be tested for fungal rot

Actually, apart from being extereme E is the only choice which would be most illogical. If you read it carefully- eventually action given in E would not let a company sell tulu plants 'at all' if any single case of fungal rot has been detected there.

A and B both actions are fine - provided they are done together. C is fine again - but not practical and one can not be sure when reasearch would yield a result.

D is the only option that would logically help as company can not sell before 30 weeks and after 30 weeks these can be tested accurately.

Hope it helps.

Hi Karishma/Manhattan experts/,

I feel this question is not a true GMAT style question. Firstly, the right answer as stated by OA(D) is too straight. On GMAT this is usually a trap, GMAT wants us to usually fall for a good looking straight answer, which is not correct.

Secondly, Whatever is given in the question stem in this question is a FACT!! You can't go against it.
Stem states "And many tulu plants are sold before they are 24 weeks old."
Once the question stems says that you can't do anything about it.

The right answer will never go against the question stem. Option D lacks here: "Ensuring that tulu plants not be sold before they are 30 weeks old" Notice how option D asks you to do something that can't be done to ALL the plants because stems clear points many (it can be 1 or it can be all, we don't care! as it long some plants are included) plants plants are sold before they are 24 weeks old.

The reason I am putting it out there is these questions take us away from GMAT way of thinking and it is not a good thing!!
If you have strived hard to understand how GMAT frames questions, you would know what I am talking about here.

EXPERTS please tell us am I right with above break down of the question? This will help me and all others.

Appreciate your help.

-K

Hey all,

Thanks for the comments here, they're really helpful.

It would be amazing if someone could walk me through where my logic is wrong.

I saw both C and D as attractive answers, and chose C. I'll explain my rationale for all answer choices. Does my logic stink anywhere? More importantly, can someone explain why D works isntead of C, and where my logic is wrong?

(A) -- a notice won't reassure gardeners since they are still just as likely to buy fungal-ridden tulus
(B) -- labeling a tulu that is less than 30 weeks old will similarly not help gardeners avoid buying fungal-ridden tulus
(C) To me, C works assuming you can find another way to test plants less than 24 weeks old. Clearly current methods of testing this plant are not good enough. I liked this answer because, assuming the research pays off, the government can still meet their original goal (to reassure gardeners that the plants have been tested). Plus, as an added bonus, this answer choice won't force customers into changing their buying habits -- after all, the fact that customers buy tulus <24 weeks old indicate that they prefer these types of tulus. The only assumption here is that the research pays off...
(D) To me, D works so long as people buy tulus >30 weeks old even though they don't currently do so. As long as the assumption that people will simply buy older tulus (i.e. that there is no preference for young tulus over old tulus), this answer choicew works.
(E) Sounded kind of extreme when I first read it, and C + D looked attractive so I didn't give this one much thought. It seems like it won't necessarily stop people from buying fungal-ridden tulus as the quarentine occurs after the fact. Seems like a weak choice to me.

If someone could explain where my logic sucks on C vs. D, that'd be great

Hey all,

Can someone please add a very necessary clarification to this question?

Answer choice C - assumes that the research works.
Answer choice D - assumes that people will change behavior and start buying tulus after aged 30 (because, everyone wants to buy older plants.....)

I am struggling to see if my logic in this problem is fundamentally flawed, or if it's just not a good problem. Would be great if an expert (or three) could clarify. Thanks!

I think all the gmat questions are the reflections of the real cases in the real world. The one you choose need to be much more feasible than any other choice listed. so , i start to think that maybe "applicability" is one of the most important principles. in this question,we may be attracted by some choices like C. But C is harder to enforce than D,right. D is the best way to solve this problem.

Thanks ZoeHu. However, I'm not sure if viewing things from a real-world perspective is the best explanation. I think this strategy also introduces assumptions into your thought process, which can lead you into trap answers. Plus, I've seen very few answer explanations that incorporate real-world style thinking. This problem is an example of that - how could this plan work if the market has a clear preference for 24-week-old tulus?

When I re-read the question, however, I see the answer to my question emerges. My question is: why is C a better answer than D? The question stem question stem asks you to figure out what answer choice will help the government overcome the problem with testing for fungal rot.
To me, the thought process should be as follows: The government is going with this plan - there's no ifs ands or buts. Since they're going with this plan, they need to improve this plan. How can you take this plan and improve it so that it works?
To me, this still leads you to C and D - I frankly think that they're both right, but D is a better answer since it directly addresses the government's plan, instead of modifying it into something else (a new plan of some sort...). The government's plan is to use this specific test for fungal rot, not to develop a new plan for fungal rot. Plus, maybe the best alternative the gov develops only finds fungal rot in half the species, or maybe it requires tulus to be 35 weeks old, etc -- point being that there are more assumptions you bring in wtih answer choice C, which is another reason why it's wrong.

I could still raise issues about whether a new problem is introduced because of consumer preferences for tulus that are 24 weeks old vs. 30+ weeks old, but that concern is not raised by the question stem - all we care about is the government's plan.

Does that make sense? Please feel free to disagree with me and tell me where I'm wrong. Happy to discuss this further.

Can we please discuss option E

No one tried explaining why option E is incorrect. I'd say not to look for only the correct answers but try to ponder why incorrect options are incorrect.

Any help would be appreciated.

In the reading material, the article clealy said that inflected plants less than 30 weeks old have generally not built up enough fungal rot in their systems to be detected reliably. plz pay attention to "reliably", by this words, we can say that there is at least one way to test tulu plant less than 30 weeks, but the accuracy of the test is not "reliable", thus C is not the right answer.

Steinbeck ,
Implementing option E will result in a scenario where all the horticulture companies will be quarantined and no Tulu plants will be available

Yes thanks manishkhare

I learned it from the Official Explanation when no one cared to answer it here. Thanks to you too

I was one of those being trapped by C. Able to roughly understand why to pick D (guaranteed solution) rather than C (you need to assume research pays off - one more assumption required).

So, can we conclude that for any question involving discrepancy evaluation, answers proposing researches/investigations without stating final findings/results (rather just objectives/purposes) will never be the correct ones?

I also fell for C. However, now that I look at it, the question is - which of the following, if "performed by the govt ministry".

C says that researching possible ways to test tulu plants less than 24 weeks old for fungal rot.

The issue could be that "researching possible ways to test tulu plants less than 24 weeks old for fungal rot" cannot be "performed by the govt ministry"; rather, it will require some other external agency.

On the other hand, E is something that govt ministry can easily do.

It could be the case, but we are not sure whether it is true in the GMAT Universe that whatever not performed directly by the subject (govt can only push for researches, but cannot do them by itself in lab) is never the correct answer.
Any other similar question to prove/counter-prove this rule?

D cannot be logically correct. The govt ministry only plans to test but not yet implemented. Therefore, only after implementing the plan and prohibiting tulu sale until they are 30 weeks old will logically overcome the problem.