No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its

only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics.

but law is 'clearly' unnecessary because inspite of law tree population is declining


C suggests that the tree population is declining cause though the use of Oil is prohibited in this country but but it is still being exported and law is still necessary cause in the future Oil's demand in other country would decline and thus prevention of the use of that Oil will help saving those Trees.

Problem with B is that it actually strenthen the conclusion. It says that the Oil is getting used only in cosmetic products and since the use of Oil is those cosmetic product is banned yet tree population is declining means that law is ineffective thus unnecessary.

C for me.

IMO C.

Because, even though there might be other reasons for the decline of the tree (such as certain types of wild animals contributing to the destruction of the tree) other than use in cosmetics, if the law is removed then the decline will be much more since the demand is going to go up. Hence the law should not be repealed.


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo
Can you please explain what is wrong with answer choice B?

I feel that if cosmetics is the only consumer good where Yucaipa tree-bark oil used, then lifting the ban would result in further decline in the number of trees. So it weakens the conclusion.

Hey PriyankaPalit7 !
Let me try to explain!


Imagine you are in a conversation with the author of the above passage. If you tell him that "Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used in any other consumer goods other than cosmetics.", what do you think he will reply? He will just say "Okay. Thanks for the info. The law is still useless.".

We are not really weakening his conclusion by stating the above.
Example if 1% trees are being used for cosmetics and other huge % is declining because of some other reason. Now if you tell the author the above option B then will he care? Think about it.
Also do we know that the option is taking about the nation in particular or is just stating some fact common to all nations?

Remember when you find such options, hang on to them. Evaluate the others to find if you have an option that weakens the argument more directly!

Keeping the above in mind, let us also check E!

First i want you to notice "some" and "thereby contributing".
Same logic as above. Imagine a conversation with the author. If you say the above, will he care? Will it weaken his conclusion. He will again thank you for the info.
Also be careful with words such as "some". Some means how many? Is it 1 , 2, 3 or more than 3?
"contributing". By how much? 1%? 90%?

Hope this helps!

According the Peterson's GMAT book, the official answer is D. Peterson's provides the following explanation:

"The correct answer is (D). Choice (D) weakens the argument by providing some evidence that in this nation it would be comparatively expensive to produce cosmetics with Yucaipa tree-bark oil and, accordingly, that the tree population in this nation might not be significantly depleted even if the law were repealed."

Can anyone please confirm the OA? And provide a better analysis? Thanks

gmat1393 GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo nightblade354 iamsiddharthkapoor

According to MGMAT, the OA is C, though they cannot confirm this. I have updated the OA for now, as (D) clearly is not our answer.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t4404.html

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
This doesn't help much in non scrapping it's just restating a premise in the argument


b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetic
It could be used in some other viable option

c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
If this is the case then people might start importing then a ban is important in securing

d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
It lends support in Scrapping

e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
Completely out of context

Hence IMO C

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.