Parks Department director: If tourists continue to hike in Gualala Poi

Question

Parks Department director: If tourists continue to hike in Gualala Point Regional Park at the current rate, the fragile wetlands ecosystem in the park may be irreparably damaged. The Parks Department has a mandate to protect the ecosystems under its control from irreversible harm. Therefore, we have put forth a proposal to institute a new fee policy under which visitors to Gualala Point Regional Park will be charged a graduated fee based on the number of hours they spend in the park. This fee will induce visitors to spend less time in the park, thereby reducing the danger of irreparable damage to the wetlands ecosystem.

The director’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

A. It overlooks the possibility that only those visitors to Gualala Point Regional Park who do not hike there will find the fees generated by the new policy prohibitively expensive.

B. It fails to consider that the new fee policy will be unfair to lower-income and fixed-income Gualala Point Regional Park visitors.

C. It takes for granted that there is no way other than the new fee policy to reduce the danger of irreparable damage to the wetlands ecosystem in the park.

D. It fails to take into account that local residents who frequently visit Gualala Point Regional Park may be more adversely impacted by the new fee policy than tourists.

E. It overlooks the possibility that tourists who do not wish to pay the new fees may visit other parks under the Parks Department’s control instead.

tarunanandani · Accepted Answer

IMO A.

Option C  is incorrect because even if there is some other way to reduce the damage, it doesn't have any impact on the director's new fee policy plan. The new fee policy can also be effective in reducing the damage. So, this option doesn't weaken the director's argument.

However  option A  implies that the new policy  will not change the number of tourists who hike  in the park and as per the director's arguments those tourists who hike are responsible for the damage. So, this option weakens the argument and hence is the answer.

ArjunJag1328 · Answer

Parks Department director: If tourists continue to hike in Gualala Point Regional Park at the current rate, the fragile wetlands ecosystem in the park may be irreparably damaged. The Parks Department has a mandate to protect the ecosystems under its control from irreversible harm. Therefore, we have put forth a proposal to institute a new fee policy under which visitors to Gualala Point Regional Park will be charged a graduated fee based on the number of hours they spend in the park. This fee will induce visitors to spend less time in the park, thereby reducing the danger of irreparable damage to the wetlands ecosystem.

The director’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

A. It overlooks the possibility that only those visitors to Gualala Point Regional Park who do not hike there will find the fees generated by the new policy prohibitively expensive.
  Explanation: The passage talks about people who hike. Hence INCORRECT

B. It fails to consider that the new fee policy will be unfair to lower-income and fixed-income Gualala Point Regional Park visitors. 
  Explanation: This options actually strengths the argument. Hence INCORRECT

C. It takes for granted that there is no way other than the new fee policy to reduce the danger of irreparable damage to the wetlands ecosystem in the park. 
  Explanation: Park director assumes that raising the fee policy is the only way to reduce the number of visitors. What if the people are willing to pay that amount? In that case, Director's plan will fail. Hence the option is CORRECT in my opinion.

D. It fails to take into account that local residents who frequently visit Gualala Point Regional Park may be more adversely impacted by the new fee policy than tourists. 
  Explanation: Strengthen - INCORRECT
 
 E. It overlooks the possibility that tourists who do not wish to pay the new fees may visit other parks under the Parks Department’s control instead. 
  Explanation: IRRELEVANT

IMO C

Shobhit7 · Answer

IMO, Ans is E.

Park department is proposing a fee on a given park to prevent the entire wetlands ecosystem. They did overlook the point that damage to the same extent might continue to happen if all the people simply switch to another park under their control.

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

redskull1 · Answer

Lovely question this...A super GMATlike question...

C appears to be a major contendor

C is incorrect by a mile mainly because the argument is talking about what is incorrect with THIS PLAN...the existence of another plan cannot weaken what is wrong with this particular plan from any angle whatsoever

A is basically telling “ the plan wont do much because people who hike will not be putoff by the fees”

BINGO...

Posted from my mobile device

argerniki · Answer

Even though I picked E, I think I understood why A is correct:

A.  It overlooks the possibility that only those visitors to Gualala Point Regional Park  who do not hike there  will find the fees generated by the new policy prohibitively  expensive . 
 This means, that people who hike there won't find the fees expensive and therefore will continue to hike there as long as they want. This would not reduce the "hiking-hours" in the park, which was the initial reason for the fees. Therefore, the plan could fail.

AnkitNandwani1 · Answer

The director's argument relies on the assumption that instituting a graduated fee based on the number of hours spent in the park will effectively reduce the time visitors spend there, thereby protecting the wetlands ecosystem. The argument is vulnerable if this assumption is not valid.

The most relevant criticism would address whether the fee will actually lead to the desired outcome (i.e., reducing the time visitors spend in the park, particularly those who hike). The correct criticism should highlight a potential flaw in this assumption.

A. It overlooks the possibility that only those visitors to Gualala Point Regional Park who do not hike there will find the fees generated by the new policy prohibitively expensive.

This is the correct answer because it directly addresses a potential flaw in the director's assumption. If only non-hikers find the fees prohibitive, hikers—the group most responsible for the potential damage—might not reduce their time in the park. This undermines the effectiveness of the policy in achieving its intended goal of protecting the ecosystem.

C. It takes for granted that there is no way other than the new fee policy to reduce the danger of irreparable damage to the wetlands ecosystem in the park.

This might be true, but the argument's vulnerability isn't about the exclusivity of the solution but whether the proposed solution will actually work.

Parks Department director: If tourists continue to hike in Gualala Poi

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

Parks Department director: If tourists continue to hike in Gualala Poi

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