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 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
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.
04 Feb 2025, 10:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Rabbits were introduced to Tambor Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous rabbit population now menaces the island's agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a small chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native herbivore. The government's plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
(A) There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Tambor than that it will infect wild animals of species native to the island.
(B) Overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby.
(C) There is at least one alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would not involve any threat to the bilby.
(D) There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
(E) The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
Hey, people! Interesting passage. We’re told about a certain island that rabbits were brought to in the 1800s. Because these rabbits are so large in number, the amount they’re eating now is a threat to the island’s environment. The plan is therefore to cut the numbers down by using a virus that has caused rabbit epidemics and reduced their populations significantly elsewhere in the past. There is a problem, though. This virus may also harm a certain endangered animal on the island. That’s why even though this plan may help the island’s agriculture, it may harm native animals on the island.
We’re asked to look for an assumption.
(A) There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Tambor than that it will infect wild animals of species native to the island.
Not something we need to assume. We’re focused on native wildlife – not domestic animals. And even IF there was a higher chance of this, the argument’s logic doesn’t crumble. Just because something is MORE harmful to something else, doesn’t mean it’s not harmful to bilbies in this case.
(B) Overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby.
This is the answer. Ultimately, we’re talking about a threat to native wildlife. In a sense, what’s going on here is that yeah, there is a risk in using the virus BUT not doing so would be far worse given the current situation. The following negation may also help: Overgrazing by rabbits poses the most significant current threat to the bilby.
(C) There is at least one alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would not involve any threat to the bilby.
Nope. The logic of the argument isn’t dependent on there being a better way to reduce the rabbit population. If I say plan X is bad because of a certain reason, that doesn’t require an alternative plan that is better to exist. A bad plan remains a bad plan.
(D) There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
Not what we’re looking for. Even if there were predators of rabbits on the island, it doesn’t affect the argument being put forth - how the virus may also negatively affect bilbies.
(E) The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
Nope. It is an interesting answer choice, though. But even if the virus hasn’t worked elsewhere to CONTROL populations of rabbits, that doesn’t go so far to say it cannot devastate their populations outright (which the passage says).
The argument above assumes which of the following?
(A) There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Tambor than that it will infect wild animals of species native to the island.
(B) Overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby.
(C) There is at least one alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would not involve any threat to the bilby.
(D) There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
(E) The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
Hey, people! Interesting passage. We’re told about a certain island that rabbits were brought to in the 1800s. Because these rabbits are so large in number, the amount they’re eating now is a threat to the island’s environment. The plan is therefore to cut the numbers down by using a virus that has caused rabbit epidemics and reduced their populations significantly elsewhere in the past. There is a problem, though. This virus may also harm a certain endangered animal on the island. That’s why even though this plan may help the island’s agriculture, it may harm native animals on the island.
We’re asked to look for an assumption.
(A) There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Tambor than that it will infect wild animals of species native to the island.
Not something we need to assume. We’re focused on native wildlife – not domestic animals. And even IF there was a higher chance of this, the argument’s logic doesn’t crumble. Just because something is MORE harmful to something else, doesn’t mean it’s not harmful to bilbies in this case.
(B) Overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby.
This is the answer. Ultimately, we’re talking about a threat to native wildlife. In a sense, what’s going on here is that yeah, there is a risk in using the virus BUT not doing so would be far worse given the current situation. The following negation may also help: Overgrazing by rabbits poses the most significant current threat to the bilby.
(C) There is at least one alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would not involve any threat to the bilby.
Nope. The logic of the argument isn’t dependent on there being a better way to reduce the rabbit population. If I say plan X is bad because of a certain reason, that doesn’t require an alternative plan that is better to exist. A bad plan remains a bad plan.
(D) There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
Not what we’re looking for. Even if there were predators of rabbits on the island, it doesn’t affect the argument being put forth - how the virus may also negatively affect bilbies.
(E) The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
Nope. It is an interesting answer choice, though. But even if the virus hasn’t worked elsewhere to CONTROL populations of rabbits, that doesn’t go so far to say it cannot devastate their populations outright (which the passage says).
04 Feb 2025, 22:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi KarishmaB,
Thank you for the quick response.
If I try to paraphrase the crux of your response, it is that:
Negated choice B - Overgrazing by rabbits poses the most significant current threat to the bilby - introduces a possibility or reasonable doubt that "overgrazing by rabbits MIGHT be a bigger threat than the threat of a viral epidemic", thereby invalidating the conclusion that the plan will "clearly" increase the threat to the bilby.
So, it is hence necessary to assume that overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby, or, for that matter, even a significant threat to the bilby.
Very interesting. Thank you
KarishmaB
Thank you for the quick response.
If I try to paraphrase the crux of your response, it is that:
Negated choice B - Overgrazing by rabbits poses the most significant current threat to the bilby - introduces a possibility or reasonable doubt that "overgrazing by rabbits MIGHT be a bigger threat than the threat of a viral epidemic", thereby invalidating the conclusion that the plan will "clearly" increase the threat to the bilby.
So, it is hence necessary to assume that overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby, or, for that matter, even a significant threat to the bilby.
Very interesting. Thank you
KarishmaB
Quote:
06 Feb 2025, 09:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
A) There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Tambor than that it will infect wild animals of species native to the island.
Out of scope. we are not interested in domestic animals here
B) Overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby.
YEAH, point 2 above
C) There is at least one alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would not involve any threat to the bilby.
The para is talking of a specific plan, so alternative mean will not effect the argument
D) There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
Again out of scope, we are talking of a specific case
E) The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits
Not necessary. it may be introduced in very small scale till now.
Answer:B
Out of scope. we are not interested in domestic animals here
B) Overgrazing by rabbits does not pose the most significant current threat to the bilby.
YEAH, point 2 above
C) There is at least one alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would not involve any threat to the bilby.
The para is talking of a specific plan, so alternative mean will not effect the argument
D) There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
Again out of scope, we are talking of a specific case
E) The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits
Not necessary. it may be introduced in very small scale till now.
Answer:B
