Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in

Question

Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species. To protect wildlife we must regulate such development in Figoria: future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats. Thus, development would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them. Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that
have already put their natural resources to commercial use.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument advanced by the Figorian Wildlife Commission depends?

A. More species have been endangered by the development of wetlands than have been endangered by any other type of development.
B. The species indigenous to natural wetland habitats will survive in specially constructed replacement wetlands.
C. In nations that are primarily agricultural, wetland development does not need to be regulated.
D. Figorian regulation of development has in the past protected and preserved wildlife.
E. The species that inhabit Figorian wetlands are among the most severely threatened of the designated endangered species.

Raxit85 · Answer

Replacement wetlands will be built to offset wetland development. So, Wetland development will cause no net reduction of wetlands and will not threaten the species that inhabit them.

A gap that does exist is whether the newly constructed wetlands could accomplish all that the Wildlife Commission's conclusion suggests they will. Would the animals that inhabit those wetlands be able to move to the new ones, and would they survive there?

Let’s negate B: The species indigenous to natural wetland habitats will NOT SURVIVE in specially constructed replacement wetlands. The conclusion falls apart.

Maybe the act of being moved or some subtle difference between natural and man-made wetlands would render the slimy wetland species unable to survive the switch.

(A) is out of scope-the argument does not compare the impact of different types of developments. 
(C) is out of scope. There's no discussion of agriculture in the argument. 
(D) is out of scope as the success of previous regulations is irrelevant to predictions for the impact of the regulation discussed in the argument. If past ones had failed-i.e. if we negate (D)-it's irrelevant because those failed regulations may have been poorly designed. 
(E) is out of scope. The argument does not mention how threatened the affected animals are.

Hence, B is correct.

bestgmat · Answer

Let's analyze the argument presented by the Figorian Wildlife Commission:

They're suggesting that the development of wetlands for commercial and residential purposes has endangered many species. To counteract this, they propose that any future wetland development in Figoria should be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats, ensuring there is no net reduction in wetland area, and thus, no threat to the species living in them.

Given this, let's evaluate each answer choice:

This statement, while potentially concerning, is not a necessary assumption for the Wildlife Commission's argument. Their point doesn't hinge on wetland development being the worst type of development for species.

This choice directly relates to the Commission's main solution: creating replacement wetland habitats. If species can't survive in these constructed habitats, the solution wouldn't achieve its goal.

The argument presented by the Wildlife Commission doesn't mention or rely on the specifics of agricultural nations. This isn't a necessary assumption for their proposal.

The Wildlife Commission's argument focuses on future regulations, not past ones. Whether or not past regulations were effective doesn't necessarily impact the validity of the proposed future regulations.

The severity of the threat to Figorian wetland species, while potentially important, is not a direct assumption underlying the Commission's main point, which is about avoiding any additional threat from future development.

Given the analysis, the best choice that supports the Figorian Wildlife Commission's argument is B

Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in

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

Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in

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