Tougher international restrictions on importing pandas to zoos in the

Question

Tougher international restrictions on importing pandas to zoos in the United States are not to blame for the recent shortage of pandas on display in U.S. zoos. In fact, the real reason fewer zoos today have fewer pandas on display than 10 years ago is that the reproduction rates of pandas have decreased by 40% and the cost of upkeep of pandas has increased by 30% over the same time period.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most effectively strengthen the conclusion presented above?

A) Over the past 10 years, no pandas have been imported to the United States.

B) Since there are fewer pandas in the world today than 10 years ago, zookeepers have found it difficult to secure pandas for their zoos, especially since the cost to secure and support the panda is twice that of any other animal.

C) The recent drought in China and southeastern Asia has severely decreased the bamboo shoots available for pandas to eat throughout the world.

D) A recent study has concluded that the animal people look forward to seeing the most at zoos is the koala bear.

E) An increase in the number of zoos throughout the United States has increased the demand for pandas by medium-sized and small zoos.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Sidway · Answer

Summarizing the question - Drop in pandas in US zoos -> Why?
It is not because of restrictions bringing them to US.
It's because of reproduction rate is lower and cost of upkeep is higher.

To prove: Either  weaken link of restriction  or  Strengthen link of lower reproduction rate / higher cost

A) Over the past 10 years, no pandas have been imported to the United States.
Yes but why? Is it because of restrictions or because of higher costs/ less pandas? We don't know
 REJECT

B) Since there are fewer pandas in the world today than 10 years ago, zookeepers have found it difficult to secure pandas for their zoos, especially since the cost to secure and support the panda is twice that of any other animal.
Less pandas -> lower reproduction rate
Cost of support is twice of any other animal -> cost of upkeep higher
This adds to what we need to strengthen 
 ACCEPT

C) The recent drought in China and southeastern Asia has severely decreased the bamboo shoots available for pandas to eat throughout the world.
Less food available -> Less pandas available.
This provides an alternative reason why its difficult to get pandas. It may be because of lack of food, not lower reproduction rate or high upkeep cost ( Do not rationalize less food as higher upkeep cost. We don't know that). This weakens the link we want to strengthen
 REJECT

D) A recent study has concluded that the animal people look forward to seeing the most at zoos is the koala bear.
That's cool but why is bringing pandas in difficult? Is it because of restrictions or because of higher costs/ less pandas? We don't know
 REJECT

E) An increase in the number of zoos throughout the United States has increased the demand for pandas by medium-sized and small zoos.
An increase in demand doesn't tell us why there is a reduction in supply. Is it because of restrictions or because of higher costs/ less pandas? We don't know
 REJECT

--------------- 
 Sid B - 99th percentile Perfect Verbal GMAT Coach. 
 Book a call   here

impatientdude · Answer

Ans is A

A eliminates restrictions as a cause — imports were already zero, restrictions can't reduce zero.

B supports the alternative explanation — but leaves restrictions as a potentially contributing factor alongside cost and reproduction.

The conclusion specifically says restrictions are NOT to blame. A directly eliminates them. B supports the alternative without eliminating restrictions.

AllisonBell · Answer

Answer choice (A) establishes that no pandas have been imported in the past ten years. That doesn’t rule out restrictions as a cause, since it could be that no pandas have been imported  because of restrictions.  The argument doesn’t say when restrictions began, so it’s possible that they started ten years ago or more.  This choice doesn’t leave us with any more information that we started with  — are the restrictions the reason no pandas were imported, or is it due to the other factors listed?

Answer choice (B) does leave open the possibility that restrictions played a role, but that’s okay.  The correct answer to a Strengthen question doesn’t have to completely prove the conclusion; it just has to make it more likely.  By providing additional reasons that could explain the change from ten years ago, this answer makes it more likely that restrictions are not to blame.

To further explore Critical Reasoning, check out ManhattanPrep’s   Free GMAT Trial Classes and Events  . Our Session 1 trial class includes an in-depth lesson on CR led by a 99th percentile expert instructor!

Best,

impatientdude · Answer

Well  AllisonBell  since you're throwing the book definition at me.

I could also argue that no import for last 10 years ever so slightly strengthens my belief that recent changes are not to be blamed on ongoing restrictions (irrespective of when they are brought into effect).

I do see your argument for B, however I donot see why A cant also be correct at the same time.

egmat · Answer

Hi impatientdude,

I see exactly where your instinct comes from, and it's a reasonable one: "if zero pandas came in, then restrictions had nothing left to block, so they can't be the cause." The catch is the  hidden why  behind that zero.

Look at what A actually says:  "Over the past 10 years, no pandas have been imported to the United States."  It gives you the  fact  (zero imports) but not the  reason  for it. And that reason is the whole fight in this argument.

Ask yourself:  why  were no pandas imported?
- Maybe because the tougher restrictions blocked them - in which case A actually points  toward  restrictions being the cause.
- Maybe because they're too costly / too scarce - in which case it leans your way.

A is consistent with  both  stories at once, so it doesn't push the conclusion in either direction. A real strengthener has to make the author's preferred explanation  more likely than its rival . A leaves the two exactly as tied as before - that's why it doesn't even "slightly" strengthen. B, by contrast, directly feeds both pillars the author named (fewer pandas worldwide + double the upkeep cost).

So the answer to "why can't A and B both be right?" is: B moves the needle, A doesn't move it at all.

Turn one knob to feel it.  Suppose A instead read:

"Over the past  10  years, no pandas have been imported  despite import rules being loosened ."

Now the zero  can't  be blamed on restrictions, so it genuinely strengthens. The original A is missing exactly that piece - which is why it stays neutral. Whenever a choice states an outcome but hides the cause, treat it as inert until the cause is pinned down.

Answer: B

MehakKaushal · Answer

I Guess a more valid reason to discard option D would be the use of the word "  The recent" drought  . Lack of bamboo/food can go any of 2 directions : less food high upkeep cost within US or high cost world over so less no of pandas left for import. but since this reason is valid only for recent times and argument talks about 10 years, it cant justify for that long a time period.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The wording "most effectively strengthen" identifies this is as a Strengthen question.

For some reason, there are fewer pandas in zoos than there were 10 years ago, according to the stimulus. The author concludes this occurred not because of international restriction on panda imports but because reproduction rates of pandas have decreased and the cost of caring for pandas has increased.

The author assumes that there are no other factors beyond birth rates and cost that might prevent pandas from being kept in zoos in the United States. Look for a choice that supports this assumption about birth rates, costs, or both.

(B) strengthens the author's argument by supporting the belief that reproduction rates and costs are influencing the choices of zookeepers not to bring pandas into their zoos.

(A) confirms that zoos are not bringing in more pandas but fails to address why, which is the primary focus of the author's argument. If the reason is due to international restrictions, the author's argument is shot down.

(C) fails to support the author's claim. While the drought in China might be why there are fewer pandas overall, it fails to explain why there are fewer pandas in American zoos.

(D) is irrelevant because it addresses a different animal.

(E) presents a scenario in which pandas have increased in demand but fails to support the author's claim as to why fewer pandas are available for all zoos, not just medium-sized and small zoos.

peaky · Answer

Is it necessary that strengthen and weaken question include a new information in the right answer?

Chose answer C thinking that it gives a new info, felt B just reiterated what was given in the passage.

egmat · Answer

Hi peaky,

Great question, and it gets at a myth that trips up a lot of people. Let me clear it up directly.

No - a correct strengthener does not have to bring in brand-new outside information.  The only job of a strengthener is to make the author's conclusion  more likely . Sometimes it does that by adding a fresh fact; just as often it does it by reinforcing a link the argument is already leaning on. "New info" is not the test - "does it push the conclusion?" is.

Now look at what the author actually claims: fewer pandas are on display  because  ( 1 ) reproduction rates dropped and ( 2 ) upkeep cost rose -  not  because of import restrictions.

Why B works (even though it feels familiar): 
- "there are fewer pandas in the world today" - directly backs the lower-reproduction pillar.
- "the cost... is twice that of any other animal" - directly backs the higher-cost pillar.

B isn't just repeating the passage - it independently confirms that both of the author's stated causes are real and biting. That's exactly what nudges the conclusion up.

Why C fails despite being shiny new info:  the drought reducing bamboo  is  new - but new in the wrong direction. It hands you a  different  reason pandas are scarce (starvation), one the author never named. As Sidway noted in the thread, that competes with the reproduction/cost story rather than supporting it. New information that introduces a rival cause tends to  weaken , not strengthen.

So watch the trap: don't reward a choice for feeling novel, and don't punish a choice for feeling familiar. Ask only,  "Does this make the author's two reasons more believable?"  B does; C doesn't.

Quick gut-check to lock it in:  imagine a choice that read  "Panda upkeep costs have tripled at every U.S. zoo in the last decade."  Almost nothing new conceptually - yet it strengthens hard, because it feeds a stated pillar. Novelty was never the point.

Answer: B

Tougher international restrictions on importing pandas to zoos in the

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

Tougher international restrictions on importing pandas to zoos in the

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