GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Jun 2019, 13:03

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Posts: 40

Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Dec 2018, 05:22
7
11
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

59% (01:24) correct 41% (01:29) wrong based on 1005 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation banning deforestation in the Pacific Northwest states. This will reduce the amount of damage caused to wildlife in that region. After Canada introduced laws against that practice, there was a fourfold increase in population rates of many affected species.

What role do the bolded phrases play in the passage above?

A The first phrase states the author’s premise and the second phrase is the conclusion based on the premise.

B The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase contains a causal relationship supporting the position.

C The first phrase presents an analogy and the second phrase expresses a conclusion based on the analogy.

D The first phrase states the author’s conclusion and the second phrase reveals information that undermines the conclusion.

E The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position.

_________________
Kudos = Thanks

"Yeah, you can get a nickel for boosting Starfall, but jacking Heal's a ten-day stint in county.
Now lifting Faerie Fire, they just let you go for that — it's not even worth the paperwork.
But Reincarnation, man! That'll get you life!"

Originally posted by Subanta on 08 Jul 2015, 09:04.
Last edited by Bunuel on 19 Dec 2018, 05:22, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9340
Location: Pune, India

Show Tags

19 Dec 2018, 05:14
4
Subanta wrote:
U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation banning deforestation in the Pacific Northwest states. This will reduce the amount of damage caused to wildlife in that region. After Canada introduced laws against that practice, there was a fourfold increase in population rates of many affected species.

What role do the bolded phrases play in the passage above?

A The first phrase states the author’s premise and the second phrase is the conclusion based on the premise.
B The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase contains a causal relationship supporting the position.
C The first phrase presents an analogy and the second phrase expresses a conclusion based on the analogy.
D The first phrase states the author’s conclusion and the second phrase reveals information that undermines the conclusion.
E The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position.

The first bold sentence is what the Advocate wants to say - the point he wants to put across. Hence it can be called his position or conclusion. It is certainly not a premise which is a statement that supports the conclusion.
Hence, (B), (D) and (E) are the only possibilities.

The second bold statement is an analogy presented showing how a similar action in another country led to the desired effect. So it supports the conclusion.
It does not present a causal relationship. Note that just because it happened in Canada, it cannot be called a causal relationship. A causal relationship would be something like "A causes B". What is given to you is "in case of Canada, A caused B". This is a specific example supporting our conclusion or we can call it an analogy (comparing similarities - this is what happened in Canada so it could happen here too).
Hence, out of (B), (D) and (E), only (E) works.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Intern
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Posts: 40

Show Tags

08 Jul 2015, 11:14
3
2
Patronus wrote:
A The first phrase states the author’s premise and the second phrase is the conclusion based on the premise. - First is the conclusion, and second is more like example.
B The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase contains a causal relationship supporting the position. - CORRECT.
C The first phrase presents an analogy and the second phrase expresses a conclusion based on the analogy. - Second is not a conclusion
D The first phrase states the author’s conclusion and the second phrase reveals information that undermines the conclusion. - Second supports the 1st Bold Face.
E The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position. - If it were an analogy, it should have just said "The government must consider legislation banning deforestation in the Pacific Northwest states..... like Canada did". That's it.
If the 1st AND 2nd sentences were underlined, then I could have marked E as a perfect analogy. So I feel either the bold face is not correctly done, or the OA is doubtful.

Please post the OE to help understand.

There was no OE, but I will try my best to explain the answer. The bolded phrases have been correctly marked and the OA provided is also correct.

[*]The first bolded phrase is a statement made by the author, which is more of an assertion than a conclusion and so Options A, C and D are eliminated.

[*]For the second bolded phrase, the author talks about an effect that happened in Canada and not the US. A law in the US cannot be the cause for an effect in Canada.
This is more of an analogy that a similar law was implemented in a different country and it supports the authors initial bolded phrase (Read the second part of Option E : The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position.)
Eliminate B. Correct answer is E.

I hope my explanation was of help to you.
_________________
Kudos = Thanks

"Yeah, you can get a nickel for boosting Starfall, but jacking Heal's a ten-day stint in county.
Now lifting Faerie Fire, they just let you go for that — it's not even worth the paperwork.
But Reincarnation, man! That'll get you life!"
General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2014
Posts: 138
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V40

Show Tags

08 Jul 2015, 09:49
A The first phrase states the author’s premise and the second phrase is the conclusion based on the premise. - First is the conclusion, and second is more like example.
B The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase contains a causal relationship supporting the position. - CORRECT.
C The first phrase presents an analogy and the second phrase expresses a conclusion based on the analogy. - Second is not a conclusion
D The first phrase states the author’s conclusion and the second phrase reveals information that undermines the conclusion. - Second supports the 1st Bold Face.
E The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position. - If it were an analogy, it should have just said "The government must consider legislation banning deforestation in the Pacific Northwest states..... like Canada did". That's it.
If the 1st AND 2nd sentences were underlined, then I could have marked E as a perfect analogy. So I feel either the bold face is not correctly done, or the OA is doubtful.

Please post the OE to help understand.
_________________
Please consider giving Kudos if you like my explanation
Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 18
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38

Show Tags

08 Jul 2015, 23:48
I marked B. Isn't the second boldface a causal relationship?
Cause: Canada introduced laws against that practice
Effect: There was a fourfold increase in population rates of many affected species
Effect we want: Reduce the amount of damage caused to wildlife in the Pacific Northwest states
Hence, the government must consider legislation banning deforestation.
_________________
Kudos please if I helped you!
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 353
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
Schools: Booth '21 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8

Show Tags

16 Aug 2015, 03:26
the second statement doesnt effect from the first.It is an analogy!
Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 165

Show Tags

20 Jan 2017, 20:33
To me (B) is correct as well as it (a) has a causal relationship and (b) strengthens the author's position.

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2871
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

Show Tags

21 Jan 2017, 22:16
1
manhasnoname wrote:
To me (B) is correct as well as it (a) has a causal relationship and (b) strengthens the author's position.

I am in agreement with your point. B does not state that the causal relationship is between the Canada case and the US case (i.e Canada case is the cause and the US case is the effect). If it did so, then option B would be incorrect. A causal relation within the Canada case does not make option B incorrect.

Moreover the word "author's" should have been "advocate's".
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2543
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)

Show Tags

22 May 2017, 15:25
1
1
Subanta wrote:
U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation banning deforestation in the Pacific Northwest states. This will reduce the amount of damage caused to wildlife in that region. After Canada introduced laws against that practice, there was a fourfold increase in population rates of many affected species.

What role do the bolded phrases play in the passage above?

A The first phrase states the author’s premise and the second phrase is the conclusion based on the premise.
B The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase contains a causal relationship supporting the position.
C The first phrase presents an analogy and the second phrase expresses a conclusion based on the analogy.
D The first phrase states the author’s conclusion and the second phrase reveals information that undermines the conclusion.
E The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position.

first thing first - the conclusion is the first statement.
A/C are out right away.

second - the statements do not contradict each other
D is out.

we are left with B and E.
we clearly don't have a cause-effect relationship, rather an analogy...as a matter of fact, I don't see here any cause-effect at all.

E seems better.
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2017
Posts: 5

Show Tags

23 May 2017, 00:12
To me (B) is correct as well as it (a) has a causal relationship and (b) strengthens the author's position.

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Posts: 81
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Other (Education)

Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 06:08
I see a cause and effect relationship in this question and I think B is correct.
The explanations provided by people in this post are not convincing.
Director
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 617
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

Show Tags

07 Feb 2018, 23:35

First of all lets understand what is casual relationship.
A causes B to happen.- this is an casual relationship
Now coming to Anology,
Two different things treated as same.
That is A causes B since C caused B. Anology is used between A and C. that is here these two different things are treated as same .
Now coming to the question -
1st is the position of the author.
2nd is a casual relation ship ? = no way it is used as an anology for the US state with Canada. That is the main purpose of mentioning that premise.

Intern
Joined: 25 Jun 2018
Posts: 5

Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 04:25
From what I understand, as per US-EA the mere consideration (not implementation) of a legislation banning deforestation will reduce the amount of damage.

As per option B: the second phrase contains a causal relationship. There is a causal relationship within the last sentence, cause=Canada introduced, effect=increase in population. Now, how does this support the first sentence?

As per option E: second phrase provides an analogy. Now, an analogy is a comparison between one thing and another made for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Assuming the comparison here is between Canada and US, the author says what happened in Canada will hold true for US.

Although I marked B, I think both options are correct and E is a slightly better option than B.
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1692
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)

Show Tags

18 Jul 2018, 07:44
Subanta wrote:
U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation banning deforestation in the Pacific Northwest states. This will reduce the amount of damage caused to wildlife in that region. After Canada introduced laws against that practice, there was a fourfold increase in population rates of many affected species.

What role do the bolded phrases play in the passage above?

A The first phrase states the author’s premise and the second phrase is the conclusion based on the premise.
B The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase contains a causal relationship supporting the position.
C The first phrase presents an analogy and the second phrase expresses a conclusion based on the analogy.
D The first phrase states the author’s conclusion and the second phrase reveals information that undermines the conclusion.
E The first phrase states the author’s position and the second phrase provides an analogy supporting this position.

BF1 : Author's position clearly : A, C, and D are out.

BF2 : Author shows an analogy by providing an example of Canada to support his position. B is out.

Hence E.
_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 192

Show Tags

09 Mar 2019, 21:14
Can you give me an example where option B would be true?
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2017
Posts: 12

Show Tags

24 Mar 2019, 07:13
please explain the logical reason for eliminating the option B. I was struck in option B & C
Re: U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation   [#permalink] 24 Mar 2019, 07:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by