Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
07 Jan 2019, 10:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (02:10) correct
35%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 932
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.
10 Jan 2019, 04:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Akela
Environmentalists' claim: More wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year.
Article criticising E's claim: Recent studies indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years.
Letter to Editor against the article: You failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.
The argument in the letter (that you failed to consider intro of new wolves) is against the article (that wolf population is stable) that criticises the claim of Es (More wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year).
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?
(E) is correct.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.
This is what the argument is saying - that the article states that population is stable but that does not mean that the environmentalists’ claim is false because more wolves are introduced each year.
Rest of the options are incorrect.
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. This is not the reason the author wrote the argument. The author wanted to say that the article's criticism is not correct.
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
It seems more wolves are killed than are born each year.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
The author does not comment on "what should be done".
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
The argument doesn't say that. The numbers have remained constant.
General Discussion
09 Jan 2019, 04:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let's break down the argument.
Letter to the editor:(editor of some kind of publication) Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists [conclusion]for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. (Premise.) But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years. (Premise for support of writer's view and additional information that the article did not provide while criticizing the environmentalists)
The first highlight is the conclusion of the author.
The second highlight is what the author does not believe is a proper basis for criticizing the environmentalists and the author introduces new information to back his claim. A combination of these two should be the final conclusion ( or main point) of the argument.
Let's look at the options...
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years. TRAP - true fact but not the conclusion of the argument
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year. Opposite of what the author is trying to say. This is the article's viewpoint which is flawed.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population. Out of scope. Discard.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed. TRAP - this is true but encapsulates only half of the conclusion of the author.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim. Perfect - this combines both the points highlighted above and is the main conclusion of the argument.
Hope this helps.
Letter to the editor:(editor of some kind of publication) Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists [conclusion]for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. (Premise.) But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years. (Premise for support of writer's view and additional information that the article did not provide while criticizing the environmentalists)
The first highlight is the conclusion of the author.
The second highlight is what the author does not believe is a proper basis for criticizing the environmentalists and the author introduces new information to back his claim. A combination of these two should be the final conclusion ( or main point) of the argument.
Let's look at the options...
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years. TRAP - true fact but not the conclusion of the argument
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year. Opposite of what the author is trying to say. This is the article's viewpoint which is flawed.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population. Out of scope. Discard.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed. TRAP - this is true but encapsulates only half of the conclusion of the author.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim. Perfect - this combines both the points highlighted above and is the main conclusion of the argument.
Hope this helps.
