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 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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
12 Feb 2020, 01:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
52% (01:40) correct
48%
(01:38)
wrong
based on 303
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Lydia: Each year, thousands of seabirds are injured when they become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies. Therefore, the fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding veterinary treatment for the injured birds.
Jonathan: Your feelings for the birds are admirable. Your proposal, however, should not be adopted because treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should.
Jonathan uses which one of the following techniques in his response to Lydia?
(A) He directs a personal attack against her rather than addressing the argument she advances.
(B) He suggests that her proposal is based on self-interest rather than on real sympathy for the injured birds.
(C) He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.
(D) He attempts to discredit her proposal by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well.
(E) He evades discussion of her proposal by raising the issue of whether her feelings about the birds are justified.
12 Feb 2020, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Lydia: Each year, thousands of seabirds are injured when they become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies. Therefore, the fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding veterinary treatment for the injured birds.
Jonathan: Your feelings for the birds are admirable. Your proposal, however, should not be adopted because treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should.
Jonathan uses which one of the following techniques in his response to Lydia?
(A) He directs a personal attack against her rather than addressing the argument she advances.
(B) He suggests that her proposal is based on self-interest rather than on real sympathy for the injured birds.
(C) He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.
(D) He attempts to discredit her proposal by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well.
(E) He evades discussion of her proposal by raising the issue of whether her feelings about the birds are justified.
Only D stands to what Jonathan's technique of responding to Lydia.
A, B and E are out of scope.
C covers a wider scope to what actually was covered by Jonathan.
IMO Answer D.
Jonathan: Your feelings for the birds are admirable. Your proposal, however, should not be adopted because treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should.
Jonathan uses which one of the following techniques in his response to Lydia?
(A) He directs a personal attack against her rather than addressing the argument she advances.
(B) He suggests that her proposal is based on self-interest rather than on real sympathy for the injured birds.
(C) He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.
(D) He attempts to discredit her proposal by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well.
(E) He evades discussion of her proposal by raising the issue of whether her feelings about the birds are justified.
Only D stands to what Jonathan's technique of responding to Lydia.
A, B and E are out of scope.
C covers a wider scope to what actually was covered by Jonathan.
IMO Answer D.
12 Feb 2020, 12:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
The right answer is D.
Lydia's argument:
Premise: Each year, thousands of seabirds are injured when they become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding veterinary treatment for the injured birds.
Jonathan's argument:
Premise: Treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should.
Conclusion: Your proposal, however, should not be adopted.
Lydia concludes that fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding the veterinary treatment for the injured birds since thousands of these birds become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies.
Jonathan, on the other hand, feels that Lydia's conclusion above should not be adopted. His decision is based on the premise that the treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild as all wildlife should. From this premise, Jonathan is ignoring the possibility that some of the birds may not be seriously injured, hence treating them might restore them to a state where they are able to live their normal lives. Of course, it is possible that some of the birds might be severely injured that subjecting them to treatment might cause more harm to them than good when released into the wild after treatment. However, basing the rejection of Lydia's proposal on the premise that some birds may not benefit from veterinary treatment, Jonathan is unfair to other birds that might fully recover after treatment.
D states that Jonathan attempts to discredit her proposal by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well, and this is line with the reasoning above. The right answer is therefore D.
(A) He directs a personal attack against her rather than addressing the argument she advances.
This is incorrect. Jonathan indeed made comments about the feelings of Lydia towards the birds, suggesting that her decision might not be objective but out of her feelings for the birds. But the crust of Jonathan's argument addressed the argument by countering her argument with the premise that treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should. The validity of this argument relies on the assumption that most of the injuries sustained by the birds are very severe such that treatment does not restore them to states in which they are able to live in the wild as a wild animal should.
(B) He suggests that her proposal is based on self-interest rather than on real sympathy for the injured birds.
This is incorrect for the same reasoning ascribed to A above.
(C) He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.
This is incorrect. Jonathan does not question the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way. The only problem with his argument is that it can be flawed if most of the birds that get entangled in the equipment owned by the fishing companies sustain injuries that can be treated in order to restore the birds to a state where they can live in the wild as any other wild animal.
(E) He evades discussion of her proposal by raising the issue of whether her feelings about the birds are justified.
E is incorrect based on the same reasoning ascribed to A and B above.
Lydia's argument:
Premise: Each year, thousands of seabirds are injured when they become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding veterinary treatment for the injured birds.
Jonathan's argument:
Premise: Treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should.
Conclusion: Your proposal, however, should not be adopted.
Lydia concludes that fishing companies should assume responsibility for funding the veterinary treatment for the injured birds since thousands of these birds become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies.
Jonathan, on the other hand, feels that Lydia's conclusion above should not be adopted. His decision is based on the premise that the treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild as all wildlife should. From this premise, Jonathan is ignoring the possibility that some of the birds may not be seriously injured, hence treating them might restore them to a state where they are able to live their normal lives. Of course, it is possible that some of the birds might be severely injured that subjecting them to treatment might cause more harm to them than good when released into the wild after treatment. However, basing the rejection of Lydia's proposal on the premise that some birds may not benefit from veterinary treatment, Jonathan is unfair to other birds that might fully recover after treatment.
D states that Jonathan attempts to discredit her proposal by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well, and this is line with the reasoning above. The right answer is therefore D.
(A) He directs a personal attack against her rather than addressing the argument she advances.
This is incorrect. Jonathan indeed made comments about the feelings of Lydia towards the birds, suggesting that her decision might not be objective but out of her feelings for the birds. But the crust of Jonathan's argument addressed the argument by countering her argument with the premise that treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong the lives of animals no longer able to live in the wild, as all wildlife should. The validity of this argument relies on the assumption that most of the injuries sustained by the birds are very severe such that treatment does not restore them to states in which they are able to live in the wild as a wild animal should.
(B) He suggests that her proposal is based on self-interest rather than on real sympathy for the injured birds.
This is incorrect for the same reasoning ascribed to A above.
(C) He questions the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way, even if the goal of the interference is to help.
This is incorrect. Jonathan does not question the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way. The only problem with his argument is that it can be flawed if most of the birds that get entangled in the equipment owned by the fishing companies sustain injuries that can be treated in order to restore the birds to a state where they can live in the wild as any other wild animal.
(E) He evades discussion of her proposal by raising the issue of whether her feelings about the birds are justified.
E is incorrect based on the same reasoning ascribed to A and B above.
