A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays

Question

A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest. Since the scrub jay is a protected species, the developer must ensure that developing the tract will not harm the jays. To meet this requirement, the developer has proposed purchasing a tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped. Since that tract is already inhabited by scrub jays, clearly it has suitable habitat for the birds that development will displace.

In order for the developer’s plan for meeting the requirement to succeed, which of the following must be true?

A. The proposed development will not destroy all of the suitable scrub jay nesting sites on the land that is to be developed.
B. Scrub jays whose nests are destroyed typically become disoriented and unable to forage for food.
C. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is not suitable for development.
D. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is the only suitable habitat for scrub jays that is near the land that the developer plans to develop.
E. The scrub jay population in the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is small enough that there is room for additional jays to nest there.

Source: Skills Insight

BhavyaJha · Accepted Answer

Hi  Bunuel

Why "D" is wrong?
I assumed that jays will move to undeveloped area only if it is the nearest suitable area where they can go.

In option E- I got confused as I thought the term should be "large enough"(not "small enough") to accommodate more jays.

Please help to clarify my doubts.

genericUser · Answer

A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest. Since the scrub jay is a protected species, the developer must ensure that developing the tract  will not harm the jays . To meet this requirement, the developer has proposed purchasing  a tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped. Since that tract is already inhabited by scrub jays, clearly it has suitable habitat for the birds that development will displace.

In order for the developer’s plan for meeting the requirement to succeed, which of the following must be true?

We need to show that the bird whose nest will be displaced will not have problem in housing in the undeveloped trait.

A. The proposed development will not destroy all of the suitable scrub jay nesting sites on the land that is to be developed.
Error. If the undeveloped trait is suitable, the bird will reconstruct the nest
B. Scrub jays whose nests are destroyed typically become disoriented and unable to forage for food.
Error. Out of scope
C. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is not suitable for development.
Error. Worsen our condition.
D. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is the only suitable habitat for scrub jays that is near the land that the developer plans to develop.
Error. only = red flag. maybe there is another tract, it would be cool if the undeveloped would be suitable for nesting 
 E.  The scrub jay population in the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is small enough that there is room for additional jays to nest there.
Correct. This is a requirement that is necessary for the conclusion to hold

BhavyaJha · Answer

@

How about the term "small enough" in option E? Is it correct way of mentioning that enough space is there?

genericUser · Answer

I Think so...
"Small enough" means that there is room for other bird nest

Soumanti Roy · Answer

Here our goal is to establish that the developer's plan i.e. buying a tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped would give the required outcome(help jays).

A. The proposed development will not destroy all of the suitable scrub jay nesting sites on the land that is to be developed.- out of focus since we care only about the developer's plan to succeed.
B. Scrub jays whose nests are destroyed typically become disoriented and unable to forage for food.- goes against the developer's plan.
C. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is not suitable for development.- out of focus.
D. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is the only suitable habitat for scrub jays that is near the land that the developer plans to develop.- We don't need to prove that the developer's plan is the only possible solution, rather we need to prove that developer's plan would achieve the required outcome, there could be other solutions as well.
E. The scrub jay population in the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is small enough that there is room for additional jays to nest there.- Correct. This option correctly says that the outcome is likely.

rohit8865 · Answer

KarishmaB  maam  Bunuel

Please highlight whether 'small enough " is appropriate here??

tarun001 · Answer

Hi Rohit,
The term "small enough" in option E refers to scrub jay population in the tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped and not in tract where the development is to happen. Since it is given that this nearby undeveloped tract is already inhabited by scrub, we would want their population to not be too large (i.e. small enough) so that there is room for the displaced jays to stay.

aalalal · Answer

Answer is E. Since in the answer choice E, it mentions "population small enough", you can refer back to the argument and find out that in fact the scrub jays are protected species (their population is not that high otherwise they would not care to protect them from going extinct). D is wrong - due to the strong wording " only ".

tinbq · Answer

Hi,

Hope you be patient when read this.

Here is the argument construction:
Big Plan: To develop a tract of scrub forest where Scrub Jays nest.
No worry if you don't know what tract and Scrub (jay) mean. Neither did I at first reading. That’s why I write this long article to help myself, hopefully others like me. Alright, so we know that Scrub Jay is a species which nests in forest.
--> REQUIREMENT: must ensure that the tract development causes no harm to THE Jays (in THAT forest).

In order to fulfill the Requirement of the Big Plan, an initiative (2nd Plan) comes up. Please be noted that the Requirement of the Big Plan is now the GOAL of the 2nd plan.

The Initiative/2nd plan: buy a DIFFERENT tract in NEARBY forest where will not be developed (untouched) and where Scrub Jays (there) have already inhabited.
One supporting reason is given: THE tract (about to be purchased in NEARBY forest) is suitable for  the birds that will be DISPLACED  (the Jays in the forest mentioned at first, let’s say Jays in Forest X) to inhabit because other Jays (in Forest Y) also live there.

The wording of this reasoning is very succinct, hence tricky and difficult. We have not told clearly how the 1st and 2nd plans are linked to each other. In shorts, because some area in Forest X will be DISPLACED to  develop a tract  and because they want not to cause harm to the protected species living there (Scrub Jay), so they will buy another tract in Forest Y and   RELOCATE   the Jays to there.

As you read this long or simply you are either a native or a good English leaner, you would realize that I did not know the meaning of the word ‘tract’. I thought tract is some kind of a construction/project because they plan to develop it. But to this point, in my re-readings, I see the awkwardness in its meaning. If they need to displace the birds to build a tract (project/construction) because birds cannot live there, then it does not make sense to resettle birds to another tract.
 Well, it’s really important to get meaning of words in verbal. I find it really hard to get right on questions with /new/difficult/tricky wordings, especially for non-native speakers.

Back to the question, if we know tract is a large area of land, then the picture is much easier.
Argument: Because they need some land in Forest X (1st plan) and because they want not to cause harm to the protected species living there (the GOAL), they will displace the Scrub Jays and RELOCATE the birds to another (new) undeveloped area in forest Y, where the species has also lived (the 2nd plan). How does it work? Because Scrub Jays already inhabits in the new area, it is believed that the new area is a suitable habitat for the displaced Jays.
 
Question: In order for the developer’s plan for MEETING THE REQUIREMENT to succeed, which of the following must be true?  => The question asked us to find the Necessary Assumption for the 2nd Plan/Initiative.

Please remember that a Necessary Assumption is a must have so as to make the argument POSSIBLY true and a Sufficient Assumption, even alone, is ENOUGH to make the argument valid. 
So what else do we NECESSARILY need besides information in the 2nd plan in order to archive the GOAL? OR What do we need so as to FILL THE GAP between the 2nd plan reasoning and the GOAL?

To ensure the development causes no harm to the Scrub Jays in THE forest (X), we also need following Necessary Assumptions along with provided info above:
ii) A  suitable  habitat for the Jays to live (reason of the 2nd plan) is NECESSARY to ensure a  harmless  living place for them (the GOAL). In other words, the Scrub Jays in forest X CANNOT inhabit  with no harm  in forest Y if the habitat in forest Y is not  suitable  for them.
ii) The 2nd Plan/Initiative is feasible. Because if not, the GOAL will never be archived. We can list of some conditions for this, such as: people have enough resources and expertise to successfully execute the plan; there is enough space in forest Y for the whole bigger Jays population of both forests, etc.
Please note that above are necessary assumptions, not sufficient assumptions. Which means even when all above conditions are met, the plan may not be successful. This is what we are asked for in this question (must be true requirements (for plan) to succeed). It is different with questions that ask for information that  ensures  the success of the plan.

A. The proposed development will not destroy all of the suitable scrub jay nesting sites on the land that is to be developed.
INCORRECT This does not have to be true. Because the nesting sites in undeveloped (new) area is what we care, not the ones in the developed area.

B. Scrub jays whose nests are destroyed typically become disoriented and unable to forage for food.
INCORRECT The question does not mention about the destruction of birds’ nests. So, we have no information to evaluate this option.

C. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is not suitable for development.
INCORRECT Whether the new land (undeveloped) is suitable for the development is not important. We pay attention to whether displaced birds can live there with no harm

D. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is the only suitable habitat for scrub jays that is near the land that the developer plans to develop.
INCORRECT If we have other areas suitable for the birds to live, it does not make the plan to relocate the birds to the area fail.

E. The scrub jay population in the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is small enough that there is room for additional jays to nest there.
CORRECT This fits our reasoning above. Because if there is not enough fitting living space for the new combined Jays population, there is no certain that the birds will live with no harm. 
In my first attempt, I could not infer the word RELOCATE from the question. That’s why, to me, this choice seems irrelevant to the argument

nikitathegreat · Answer

Can someone explain why option choice E is correct and option choice A is incorrect?

GMATNinja  @VeritasKarishma

innochandan · Answer

Hi
A is incorrect because it is already mentioned in the stimulus that the the developer is buying another tract, which is suitable habitat for jay nest, so that he can develop the original tract of land, which currently is habitat of jays. It is already mentioned in the stimulus. 
Hope that helps.

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB 
Would you like to explain this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray · Answer

A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest. Since the scrub jay is a protected species, the developer must ensure that developing the tract will not harm the jays. To meet this requirement, the developer has proposed purchasing a tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped. Since that tract is already inhabited by scrub jays, clearly it has suitable habitat for the birds that development will displace.

This question is a Plan question, and like many Plan questions, does not have a directly stated conclusion. Rather, it has an implied conclusion, which is basically that the plan will work. So, we can say that the implied conclusion is the following:

Purchasing a tract that would remain undeveloped will serve to ensure that developing a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest will not harm the jays.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

Since that tract is already inhabited by scrub jays, clearly it has suitable habitat for the birds that development will displace.

We see that the developer has reasoned that, since the area that would remain undeveloped has suitable habitat for jays, keeping that area undeveloped will serve to provide habitat for the displaced jays, which will therefore not be harmed by the development of the tract of scub forest where they now nest.

In order for the developer’s plan for meeting the requirement to succeed, which of the following must be true?

This question is an Assumption Plan question, and the correct answer will state something that must be true for the plan to work. In other words, it will state an assumption on which the developer's reasoning depends.

A. The proposed development will not destroy all of the suitable scrub jay nesting sites on the land that is to be developed.

This choice provides an additional reason to believe the jays will not be harmed by the development. After all, if, in addition to the developer leaving an area with suitable habitat undeveloped, some nesting sites will remain on the land that is to be developed, then there is more reason to believe that the jays will be OK.

At the same time, we aren't looking for a choice that simply gives us more reason to believe the jays will be unharmed. We're looking for a choice that states something on which the success of the plan depends, and success of the plan does not depend on this choice being true.

After all, the idea of the plan is that the displaced jays will have nesting sites to use in the area that will remain undeveloped. So, theoretically, they won't need nesting sites in the developed area because they'll have new ones in the undeveloped area.

So, the plan could work even if what this choice says is not true.

Eliminate.

B. Scrub jays whose nests are destroyed typically become disoriented and unable to forage for food.

Rather than state an assumption on which the reasoning depends, this choice weakens the case for believing the plan will succeed.

After all, if this choice is true, then development of the jays' current nesting area could cause them to become disoriented and unable to forage for food. If it does, then the jays could starve, in which case, developing the area would harm the jays even though the developer would leave undeveloped an area with habitat suitable for jays.

Eliminate.

C. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is not suitable for development.

This choice doesn't have to be true for the plan to work.

After all, regardless of whether that tract is suitable for development, the developer plans to purchase it and leave it undeveloped. So, even if it is suitable for development, it will remain undeveloped under the plan and thus, theoretically, provide habitat for the displaced jays.

Eliminate.

D. The tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is the only suitable habitat for scrub jays that is near the land that the developer plans to develop.

This choice doesn't have to be true for the plan to work.

After all, if this choice is not true, then the tract that would remain undeveloped is not the only suitable habitat for jays near the land to be developed. In that case there are other areas where the displaced jays could nest. The presence of those other areas could only benefit the displaced jays.

Thus, this choice not being true would be an additional reason to believe that the jays would not be harmed by the development of the land where they currently nest. So, the negation of this choice helps, rather than works against, the success of the plan.

Eliminate.

E. The scrub jay population in the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped is small enough that there is room for additional jays to nest there.

Let's think about what would happen if this choice is not true.

If this choice is not true, then there is no room for additional jays to nest on the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped. In that case, leaving it undeveloped will not help the displaced jays because, even though the area has habitat suitable for jays, none of that habitat is available. In that case, the plan won't work because leaving the land undeveloped won't keep the displaced jays from being be harmed by the development.

In short, if this choice is not true, then the fact that there is suitable habitat in the area that would remain undeveloped doesn't mean the plan will succeed.

So, for the plan to work, this choice must be true.

Keep.

Correct answer:  E

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB  Is "small enough" in option E the appropriate usage of the word here ?
Dont you think it should have been "large enough" to indicate the adequate space ?  AjiteshArun

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray · Answer

Here's (E):

E.  The scrub jay population  in the tract that the developer plans to leave undeveloped  is small enough  that there is room for additional jays to nest there.

Notice that "small enough" in (E) does not describe "the tract." Rather, what's small enough is "the scrub jay population."

So, the point of (E) is that there is room in the tract for the displaced jays to nest because the current population is "small enough" to leave room for the other jays. After all, if the current jay population in the track is not small enough, then there won't be room for additional jays.

So, yes, the use of the wording "small enough" makes sense.

JoeSal · Answer

A bit late to reply, but just addressing this if there are any other wondering.

My main takeaway for this choice is that it did not say in the paragraph that it has to be near. It just so happened that a suitable area the developer found is nearby. Thus, this is wrong.

Mohak01 · Answer

The catch is, the phrase "small enough" is referring to the population of displaced jays and not the area of the tract.

A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays

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

A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays

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