X: Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and medicine derive fro

Dear vikasp99,

I'm happy to respond. This is a good question. Just a period missing, perhaps in the copying process.

We want X's assumption, so Y's objection is a distractor. The Negation Test will be helpful.

(A) Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past.
Hmm. We might know a few more cures for this or that, but does adding a few more cures make medicine "more advanced"? What does it mean for medicine to be "more advanced"? There's something unclear about this.
Also, consider the negation test. Suppose preserving those previous plant resulted in just 5 more cures, no more. We certainly could say that just 5 more cures would not make medicine "more advanced." Nevertheless, 5 cures is something, and therefore it suggests that it would be worthwhile to save all the remaining plants, at least until they can be medically tested. Negating this does not destroy the argument, so this is not an assumption.

(B) All living things exist to serve humankind.
No, this is what Y is implying about X's position.

(C) The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct.
Bingo! Think of the Negation Test. If using these species wiped them out, then any benefit would be short-lived, which would not result in much of a "boon to humanity." Negating this obliterates the argument, so this is an assumption.

(D) The only way to persuade people to preserve natural resources is to convince them that it is in their interest to do so.
Not necessarily: this is more Y's take than what X is saying.

(E) Few, if any, plant species have been saved from extinction through human efforts.
We have no evidence for this.

The best answer by far is (C).

Mike
_________________

the answer should be C.
try negation test ,if the use of these chemicals render those species extinct then the argument falls apart .

X: Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and medicine derive from rare or endangered plant species, it is likely that many plant species that are now extinct could have provide us with substances that would have been a boon to humanity. Therefore, if we want to ensure that chemicals from plants are available for use in the future, we must make more serious efforts to preserve for all time our natural resource.

Y: But living things are not our "resources" Yours is a selfish approach to conservation. We should rather strive to preserve living species because they deserve to survive, not because of the good they can do us.

X’s argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past.
the state of medicine is out of scope for the assumption question here.
(B) All living things exist to serve humankind.
if we do negation test the argument will not break aslo the purpose of the existance of the living things is out of scope as X suggest using all the things to server humankind.
](C) The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct.
The excessive use of the endangered plant will not itself lead them to extinction. it is the correct assumption choice,if we negate the choice it will break the argument given by X.
(D) The only way to persuade people to preserve natural resources is to convince them that it is in their interest to do so.
This is extreme,('the only way..')
(E) Few, if any, plant species have been saved from extinction through human efforts.
out of scope for the argument.

Hey guys i need a more elaborate and simpler version of the explanation.I am not able to understand.

Posted from my mobile device

(A) Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past.
--> Let's negate this. Medicine will not be more advanced. OK. So, conservation is not needed.

But one more thing could make conservation useful. And that could help reach the conclusion stated by X.

That thing is agriculture. Negate Test fail. Wrong.

(B) All living things exist to serve humankind. --> Author is not making such bold assumption.
(C) The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct.--
> Correct. Negation breaks the conclusion.
(D) The only way to persuade people to preserve natural resources is to convince them that it is in their interest to do so. --> Not necessary.
(E) Few, if any, plant species have been saved from extinction through human efforts. --> Not necessary.

nightblade354
I am struggling with questions if this sort, in which the argument is good, there is no logical jump. People here have directly jumped to Negation test, is this the right way, if not can you suggest something?

Posted from my mobile device

This is an assumption question (in this case, a necessary assumption question, which is the only one tested on the GMAT), so yes: negation is the correct call. If you negate the answer and it breaks the argument, that is your assumption.
_________________

X: Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and medicine derive from rare or endangered plant species, it is likely that many plant species that are now extinct could have provide us with substances that would have been a boon to humanity. Therefore, if we want to ensure that chemicals from plants are available for use in the future, we must make more serious efforts to preserve for all time our natural resource.

Y: But living things are not our "resources" Yours is a selfish approach to conservation. We should rather strive to preserve living species because they deserve to survive, not because of the good they can do us.

X’s argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past.
(B) All living things exist to serve humankind.
(C) The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct.
(D) The only way to persuade people to preserve natural resources is to convince them that it is in their interest to do so.
(E) Few, if any, plant species have been saved from extinction through human efforts.

Not sure why Y's argument was presented, its's odd.

A goes ballistic in its effort of making an assumption in that it makes an assumption that there were no serious conservation policy earlier and that had there been one it was sure that more advanced medicine would have been there.
B is overtly generic and not possible without being irrelevant.
C is CORRECT. Brings a point that "What if the use itself leads to extinction?".
D. Irrelevant.
E. If its an assumption then the argument is weakened, thus it can't be an assumption.

Answer C.
_________________