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 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.
04 Jul 2010, 13:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
71% (02:11) correct
29%
(02:26)
wrong
based on 763
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In recent years the climate has been generally cool in northern Asia. But during periods when the average daily temperature and humidity in northern Asia were slightly higher than their normal levels the yields of most crops grown there increased significantly. In the next century, the increased average daily temperature and humidity attained during those periods are expected to become the norm. Yet scientists predict that the yearly yields of most of the region’s crops will decrease during the next century.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox in the information above?
(A) Crop yields in southern Asia are expected to remain constant even after the average daily temperature and humidity there increase from recent levels.
(B) Any increases in temperature and humidity would be accompanied by higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is vital to plant respiration.
(C) The climate in northern Asia has generally been too cool and dry in recent years for populations of many crop insect pests to become established.
(D) In many parts of Asia, the increased annual precipitation that would result from warmer and wetter climates would cause most edible plant species to flourish.
(E) The recent climate of northern Asia prevents many crops from being farmed there during the winter.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox in the information above?
(A) Crop yields in southern Asia are expected to remain constant even after the average daily temperature and humidity there increase from recent levels.
(B) Any increases in temperature and humidity would be accompanied by higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is vital to plant respiration.
(C) The climate in northern Asia has generally been too cool and dry in recent years for populations of many crop insect pests to become established.
(D) In many parts of Asia, the increased annual precipitation that would result from warmer and wetter climates would cause most edible plant species to flourish.
(E) The recent climate of northern Asia prevents many crops from being farmed there during the winter.
04 Jul 2010, 15:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
C, though not a very strong one, is the only valid choice. All other options are irrelevent
The populations of crop insects have become established in northern Asia and will destroy the crops that will flourish in warmer tempratures.
The populations of crop insects have become established in northern Asia and will destroy the crops that will flourish in warmer tempratures.
05 Jul 2010, 23:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello all,
many people feel that the correct answers to "resolve the paradox" questions are not strong enough.
I think this is because many think that the resolver should be something that will definitely resolve the paradox.
That is not the case. The right answer only needs to be something that provides a logical basis for resolving--something that COULD but doesn't necessarily have to resolve the paradox.
So, with this question, and with its correct answer, many people might say it is "not convincing" or not strong enough. The point is that the fact that insect pest populations may establish themselves in the next century is something which, if true, relieves the tenstion, resolves the paradox. Granted, we don't know how threatening the insect pest population will be to the crops; that doesn't matter--again, the point is that choice C, and only choice C is something that COULD resolve the paradox.
The point is analagous to one that can be made about strengthen/weaken questions. A proper weakener, for example, doesn't have to negate the argument--it simply has to make it less likely to be true.
many people feel that the correct answers to "resolve the paradox" questions are not strong enough.
I think this is because many think that the resolver should be something that will definitely resolve the paradox.
That is not the case. The right answer only needs to be something that provides a logical basis for resolving--something that COULD but doesn't necessarily have to resolve the paradox.
So, with this question, and with its correct answer, many people might say it is "not convincing" or not strong enough. The point is that the fact that insect pest populations may establish themselves in the next century is something which, if true, relieves the tenstion, resolves the paradox. Granted, we don't know how threatening the insect pest population will be to the crops; that doesn't matter--again, the point is that choice C, and only choice C is something that COULD resolve the paradox.
The point is analagous to one that can be made about strengthen/weaken questions. A proper weakener, for example, doesn't have to negate the argument--it simply has to make it less likely to be true.
