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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
macjas
Joined: 09 May 2012
Last visit: 30 Jul 2015
Posts: 308
Given Kudos: 100
Affiliations: UWC
Location: Canada
Schools: Rotman '15 (A) Schulich '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE:Engineering (Media/Entertainment)
Products:
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
82% (01:21) correct
18%
(01:40)
wrong
based on 351
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Thirty years after the forests of the Randall Valley were destroyed by fire, none of the twelve species of lizards native to the valley remain. Since the absence of trees has increased the average annual temperature in the area by 4 degrees, scientists have hypothesized that the climate change has played a significant role in the disappearance of the lizards.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the scientists' hypothesis?
A. Most of the twelve species of lizards native to the Randall valley were already declining in population thirty years ago.
B. The very same species of lizards can still be found in a neighboring valley, where the destruction of the forests was not accompanied by a rise in temperature.
C. Scientists believe that even if the region can be replanted it will take many generations before the lizards can be reintroduced into the forests.
D. Two of the twelve species of lizard have been on the worldwide endangered species list for fifty years.
E. The loss of the forests also caused a reduction in the population of snails, slugs and worms, the three main sources of food for the lizards.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the scientists' hypothesis?
A. Most of the twelve species of lizards native to the Randall valley were already declining in population thirty years ago.
B. The very same species of lizards can still be found in a neighboring valley, where the destruction of the forests was not accompanied by a rise in temperature.
C. Scientists believe that even if the region can be replanted it will take many generations before the lizards can be reintroduced into the forests.
D. Two of the twelve species of lizard have been on the worldwide endangered species list for fifty years.
E. The loss of the forests also caused a reduction in the population of snails, slugs and worms, the three main sources of food for the lizards.
08 Jun 2012, 05:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thirty years after the forests of the Randall Valley were destroyed by fire, none of the twelve species of lizards native to the valley remain. Since the absence of trees has increased the average annual temperature in the area by 4 degrees, scientists have hypothesized that the climate change has played a significant role in the disappearance of the lizards.
Structure:
Premise: After 30 yrs 0/12 lizards remain (no one alive)
Premise: Absence of trees ---> increased temperature
Conclusion: Climate change ----> disappearance of lizards
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the scientists' hypothesis?
How do we strengthen an argument? We strengthen an argument by showing that the causation is indeed true (that climate change did cause the disappearance of the lizards). How can we show such causation? We show it by providing evidence.
A. Most of the twelve species of lizards native to the Randall valley were already declining in population thirty years ago. This actually WEAKENS the statement. If this were true then the scientists' hypothesis would be wrong.
B. The very same species of lizards can still be found in a neighboring valley, where the destruction of the forests was not accompanied by a rise in temperature. This is what we want. We are trying to show evidence that causation really holds.
C. Scientists believe that even if the region can be replanted it will take many generations before the lizards can be reintroduced into the forests. Out of scope. Yes, this COULD be true but the question still remains, "does this answer choice affect the conclusion?" Ask that and you'll come into terms that it doesn't.
D. Two of the twelve species of lizard have been on the worldwide endangered species list for fifty years.And so? Again, doesn't answer affect the conclusion.
E. The loss of the forests also caused a reduction in the population of snails, slugs and worms, the three main sources of food for the lizards. Like answer choice (A), this WEAKENS the conclusion. Why do we say this? Remember, one of the ways to weaken an argument is to disrupt the causation by introducing another event. For example, the argument says x causes y. One way to weaken the argument is to introduce z and to say that it, not x, causes y.
Hope I helped.
Structure:
Premise: After 30 yrs 0/12 lizards remain (no one alive)
Premise: Absence of trees ---> increased temperature
Conclusion: Climate change ----> disappearance of lizards
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the scientists' hypothesis?
How do we strengthen an argument? We strengthen an argument by showing that the causation is indeed true (that climate change did cause the disappearance of the lizards). How can we show such causation? We show it by providing evidence.
A. Most of the twelve species of lizards native to the Randall valley were already declining in population thirty years ago. This actually WEAKENS the statement. If this were true then the scientists' hypothesis would be wrong.
B. The very same species of lizards can still be found in a neighboring valley, where the destruction of the forests was not accompanied by a rise in temperature. This is what we want. We are trying to show evidence that causation really holds.
C. Scientists believe that even if the region can be replanted it will take many generations before the lizards can be reintroduced into the forests. Out of scope. Yes, this COULD be true but the question still remains, "does this answer choice affect the conclusion?" Ask that and you'll come into terms that it doesn't.
D. Two of the twelve species of lizard have been on the worldwide endangered species list for fifty years.And so? Again, doesn't answer affect the conclusion.
E. The loss of the forests also caused a reduction in the population of snails, slugs and worms, the three main sources of food for the lizards. Like answer choice (A), this WEAKENS the conclusion. Why do we say this? Remember, one of the ways to weaken an argument is to disrupt the causation by introducing another event. For example, the argument says x causes y. One way to weaken the argument is to introduce z and to say that it, not x, causes y.
Hope I helped.
harshavmrg
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Last visit: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Status:I will not stop until i realise my goal which is my dream too
Schools: Johnson '15
08 Jun 2012, 06:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
macjas
anything that is supporting this conclusion "scientists have hypothesized that the climate change has played a significant role in the disappearance of the lizards" is the answer...
my answer is B
