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

Question

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?

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.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

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.

Answer (E)

Subanta · Answer

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.

Patronus · Answer

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.

3274K · Answer

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.

goforgmat · Answer

the second statement doesnt effect from the first.It is an analogy!

manhasnoname · Answer

To me (B) is correct as well as it (a) has a causal relationship and (b) strengthens the author's position.

Could experts please advice?

sayantanc2k · Answer

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".

mvictor · Answer

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.

litieulong48 · Answer

To me (B) is correct as well as it (a) has a causal relationship and (b) strengthens the author's position.

Could experts please advice?

sarathgopinath · Answer

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.
Please help

Nightmare007 · Answer

Answer should be E.

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.

So answer is E.

NKT001 · Answer

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.

AkshdeepS · Answer

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.

mallya12 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja 
Can you give me an example where option B would be true?

diljeetsingh · Answer

please explain the logical reason for eliminating the option B. I was struck in option B & C

arbazfatmi1994 · Answer

An analogy is used in the comparison of two otherwise unlike things. But the situations in US and Canada are not so unlike.

Can someone explain? I have seen this a lot on boldface questions

Dbrunik · Answer

kudos is appreciated. i am not an expert and doing this breakdown for my own learning. after my explanations i will see if i was right or wrong.

weakener:

we know that no additional means are preventing releases. leaks will only become more common if use of incineration increases. 
a. if the staff had bad training, this could explain why the leaks happened. this provides an alternative explanation as to how leaks could occur, and that its not just the design itself. Keep
b. okay, so what? this says nothing about the argument. we are concerend with the argument that leaks will only happen if incineration increases, as a result of the current designs. 
c. this choice is getting at a specific part of the design, which is the capacity, but it says nothing of the design as a whole. just because the capaciity is sufficient doesnt mean that the leaks could not still occur for other reasons. 
d. this doesnt seem that important. in fact this probably strengthens it since its saying that even with new incinerators, assuming the design is the same, had the same rate of accidents. 
e. this just seems out of scope.

i went with a, confindece level medium

looks like i got it right.

key takeaway and missed points.
there were two incinerators, new and old? not clear. idk

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

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

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

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