In an effort to support the hunting of elk as opposed to bison, and in

Question

In an effort to support the hunting of elk as opposed to bison, and in doing so cut down on the reduction of buffalo populations, the rangers assigned to a particular national forest have decided to prohibit the hunting of bison for meat as long as elk and other meats are available. The rangers assert that due to the fact that elk populations are both invasive and flourishing, elk meat is less likely to harm the ecosystem.

Which of the following, if true, indicates that the decision to prohibit the serving of bison meat will not achieve the forest rangers' ecological aims?

Which of the following, if true, indicates that the decision to prohibit the serving of bison meat will not achieve the forest rangers' ecological aims?

A Despite the fact that bison meat can be raised in farms without impacting wild populations, many forest rangers contend that meat from invasive elk is better for the ecosystem.

B The restaurants which sell to many of the hunters in the forest intend to buy more meat from invasive elk.

C When different national forests attempted to prohibit the hunting of bison for meat, a positive impact on the ecosystem could not be seen until nearly a season had passed.

D Due to the fact that most restaurants would typically choose to serve bison meat rather than elk meat, they will probably acquire their meat from other forests where bison can legally be hunted for meat.

E Animals other than elk are generally utilized in the creation of food products made of meat from invasive animals.

Prep scholar

ItachiPu · Answer

A and B: the answers seem to strengthen, not weaken the proposal by the rangers. 
C: not relevant
D: if restaurants look for bison meat elsewhere, then probably there's no point for hunters to hunt for elk meat, which could not be sold.
E. not relevant as it mention other forests

blueviper · Answer

Correct Answer

D Due to the fact that most restaurants would typically choose to serve bison meat rather than elk meat, they will probably acquire their meat from other forests where bison can legally be hunted for meat.   This will lead to failure of the forest rangers' ecological aims of prohibiting  serving of bison meat . So this is the right option

push12345 · Answer

D is correct
As main aim is to restrict hunting bison but if restaurant have found other source of bison then ecological aim of saving bison will not fulfill purpose.

Posted from my mobile device

vasuca10 · Answer

D is the only option that weakens the conclusion that elk meat must be preferred over bison meat. Ultimately the purpose of national forests would be defeated of prohibiting bison meat and preferring elk meat and meat of other animals . As per Option D restaurants shall buy bison meat from other national forests where bison can be legally hunted for meat.

durant25 · Answer

Shouldn't C be the answer? The ranger's aim states in the end that the ecosystem should not be harmed. Even though there is no positive impact, it tells us about the ecosystem. In case of D, we do not talk about the ecosystem

guddo · Answer

In an effort to support the hunting of elk as opposed to bison, and in doing so cut down on the reduction of buffalo populations, the rangers assigned to a particular national forest have decided to prohibit the hunting of bison for meat as long as elk and other meats are available. The rangers assert that due to the fact that elk populations are both invasive and flourishing, elk meat is less likely to harm the ecosystem.

Which of the following, if true, indicates that the decision to prohibit the serving of bison meat will not achieve the forest rangers' ecological aims?

Which of the following, if true, indicates that the decision to prohibit the serving of bison meat will not achieve the forest rangers' ecological aims?

The rangers want to protect bison populations by preventing bison from being hunted for meat and encouraging use of elk instead.  The best weakener  would show that the ban will not actually reduce harm to bison populations, but will merely shift the source of bison meat elsewhere.

A. Despite the fact that bison meat can be raised in farms without impacting wild populations, many forest rangers contend that meat from invasive elk is better for the ecosystem.

This is tempting, but it does not clearly show that the rangers’ policy will fail. It only says farm-raised bison can be harmless and that some rangers prefer elk.

B. The restaurants which sell to many of the hunters in the forest intend to buy more meat from invasive elk.

This supports the rangers’ plan rather than weakens it.

C. When different national forests attempted to prohibit the hunting of bison for meat, a positive impact on the ecosystem could not be seen until nearly a season had passed.

This does not show failure. A delayed positive effect is still a positive effect.

D. Due to the fact that most restaurants would typically choose to serve bison meat rather than elk meat, they will probably acquire their meat from other forests where bison can legally be hunted for meat.

This is correct. If restaurants simply buy bison meat from other forests, then bison will still be hunted for meat. The policy may reduce local hunting, but it will not achieve the broader ecological aim of reducing harm to bison populations.

E. Animals other than elk are generally utilized in the creation of food products made of meat from invasive animals.

This is irrelevant. The issue is whether banning bison meat will protect bison populations.

Answer: (D)

egmat · Answer

Hi durant25,

Your instinct to keep the ecosystem front and center is good, but the word "ecosystem" appearing in a choice isn't what makes that choice correct. The question asks for the one fact that shows the plan  won't achieve  its aim, so let's anchor there.

First, pin down the actual aim

The rangers prohibit bison hunting in  this  forest so that bison populations stop declining. The "less harm to the ecosystem" line is their  reasoning  for steering hunters toward elk - but the concrete goal the question tests is: fewer bison get hunted.

Why C doesn't do the job

C says that in other forests, a positive ecosystem impact "could not be seen until nearly a season had passed." Read that carefully - it says the benefit is  delayed , not that it never comes. A plan that works  slowly  still works. So C does not show the decision  fails  to achieve the aim; it just says you have to wait for the payoff. The word "ecosystem" is there, but the statement does nothing to break the plan's logic.

Why D is the answer

D says restaurants will simply buy bison meat from  other forests  where bison hunting is still legal. So bison keep getting hunted - the demand just moves elsewhere - and this forest's prohibition fails to protect bison. That's exactly "the decision will not achieve the ecological aim," even though D never uses the word "ecosystem."

The takeaway

Match a choice to what the  question asks it to do  (defeat the aim), not to whether it echoes a keyword from the stimulus. A choice can mention the ecosystem and still be irrelevant; a choice can skip the word and still be the one that breaks the plan.

Answer: D

Amangarg1092 · Answer

Hi there, 
Need clarification. 
The statement says that the ranger is assigned a particular forest. 
Even if the bison was killed in some other forest and not the ranger forest, even then the aim of the ranger is being achieved. 
So, isn't the most approriate answer is C

guddo · Answer

C does not show failure. It says the positive impact may take nearly a season to appear, but a delayed success is still success.

D is better because the aim is not merely “protect bison inside this one forest.” The stated ecological aim is to reduce harm from hunting bison for meat by shifting demand toward elk.

If restaurants simply buy bison meat from other forests, then  bison are still being hunted for the same demand . The harm is just moved elsewhere, not reduced. That is why D shows the policy may fail to achieve its  ecological aim .

Susmita#4160 · Answer

same here, even I thought C is the best option. Because if elk meat is less likely to harm ecosystem this mean bison meat will harm the ecoosytem
and C says the exact thing that even when bison hunting was stopped this was no positive impact on ecosystem -> which is weaking the argument

Let me know if this approach is wrong pls?

Susmita#4160 · Answer

Okay I see from above explanations as well,    until nearly a season had passed  is kind off giving a delayed result, which D is not

In an effort to support the hunting of elk as opposed to bison, and in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In an effort to support the hunting of elk as opposed to bison, and in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards