Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.
Login or Register
 

LSAT--Columnist

This topic has 1 expert reply and 39 member replies
Goto page Next
ssgmatter GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
Joined
06 Jan 2010
Posted:
550 messages
Followed by:
2 members
Thanked:
12 times
Test Date:
TBD
Target GMAT Score:
750
LSAT--Columnist Post Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:36 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    Columnist: Much of North America and western
    Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid
    rain and better air quality now than five decades
    ago. Though this may be due largely to policies
    advocated by environmentalists, it nonetheless
    lends credibility to the claims of people who
    reject predictions of imminent ecological doom
    and argue that environmental policies that
    excessively restrict the use of natural resources
    may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and
    sustain the policies that brought about these
    improvements.
    Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens
    the columnist’s reasoning?
    (A) Nations sustain their wealth largely through
    industrial use of the natural resources found
    within their boundaries.
    (B) The more advanced the technology used in a
    nation’s industries, the greater is that nation’s
    ability to devote a portion of its resources to
    social programs.
    (C) A majority of ecological disasters arise from
    causes that are beyond human control.
    (D) If a compromise between the proponents of
    economic growth and the environmentalists had
    been enacted rather than the current policies,
    the environment would have seen significantly
    less improvement.
    (E) The concern demonstrated by a nation for the
    health and integrity of its natural ecosystems
    leads to an increase in that nation’s wealth.

    Thanked by: pragga, nargaman
    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    outreach GMAT Destroyer!
    Joined
    31 Jan 2010
    Posted:
    748 messages
    Followed by:
    3 members
    Thanked:
    44 times
    Post Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:59 am
    A. Correct. Last line states "restrict the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary...." and A stregthens this.
    B. arg does not focus on advanced tech and social programs. so resources devoted to social prog is not releavnt
    C.Out of scope
    D. this weakens the arg
    E. this weakens the arg

    _________________
    -------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------
    General blog
    http://amarnaik.wordpress.com
    MBA blog
    http://amarrnaik.blogspot.com/

    ssgmatter GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    06 Jan 2010
    Posted:
    550 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    12 times
    Test Date:
    TBD
    Target GMAT Score:
    750
    Post Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:20 am
    not clear can you explain it in more details....by stating the conclusion

    Regards
    PHil

    DanaJ Site Admin
    Joined
    01 Jan 2009
    Posted:
    2567 messages
    Followed by:
    416 members
    Thanked:
    605 times
    GMAT Score:
    770
    Post Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:58 am
    Received a PM.

    The reasoning goes as follows:
    - there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
    - this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements

    The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.

    A is spot on. If the wealth of a nation is generated by the use of its resources, then we actually do need to use these resources or else we can't pay for the environmental improvements.

    B may be true, but there's no mentioning of the costs. What if technology is not that expensive (I know it sounds silly, but you need to take into account only what's given and avoid making assumptions)? Besides, social programs do not necessarily mean environmental programs.

    C - could be true, but does not affect the argument of wealth and environmental improvements.

    D - could be true, but does not reference the conclusion, i.e. no mentioning of wealth.

    E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).

    ssgmatter GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    06 Jan 2010
    Posted:
    550 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    12 times
    Test Date:
    TBD
    Target GMAT Score:
    750
    Post Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:52 pm
    Thankyou Dana....It makes sense now!

    Warm Regards,
    Phil

    Post Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:10 pm
    DanaJ wrote:
    Received a PM.

    The reasoning goes as follows:
    - there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
    - this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements

    The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.

    A is spot on. If the wealth of a nation is generated by the use of its resources, then we actually do need to use these resources or else we can't pay for the environmental improvements.

    B may be true, but there's no mentioning of the costs. What if technology is not that expensive (I know it sounds silly, but you need to take into account only what's given and avoid making assumptions)? Besides, social programs do not necessarily mean environmental programs.

    C - could be true, but does not affect the argument of wealth and environmental improvements.

    D - could be true, but does not reference the conclusion, i.e. no mentioning of wealth.

    E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).
    Dana,

    Could you please explain how to arrive at the conclusion "wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment."


    Thanks in advance.

    anirudhbhalotia Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
    Joined
    23 Nov 2010
    Posted:
    123 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    5 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    800
    Post Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:04 am
    A !


    In the passage it says -

    environmental policies that
    excessively restrict the use of natural resources
    may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and
    sustain the policies that brought about these
    improvements.



    The statement in A, clearly suggests and strengthens the same.

    (A) Nations sustain their wealth largely through
    industrial use of the natural resources found
    within their boundaries.

    kt00381n Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
    Joined
    30 Nov 2010
    Posted:
    16 messages
    Post Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:38 pm
    Clear A

    mundasingh123 GMAT Titan Default Avatar
    Joined
    15 Jan 2010
    Posted:
    2330 messages
    Followed by:
    23 members
    Thanked:
    55 times
    Post Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:19 am
    DanaJ wrote:
    Received a PM.
    The reasoning goes as follows:
    - there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
    - this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements
    The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.
    E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).
    Hi DanaJ,
    Firstly , I think the conclusion is something different .
    The columnist concludes that there is credibility in claims of people argue that environmental policies that
    excessively restrict the use of natural resources
    may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and
    sustain the policies that brought about these
    improvements.
    Your conclusion " that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment. " may serve as a subconlusion on the basisof which a bigger conclusion may be reached.
    Please correct me in case i am wrong.
    can you please explain why E is wrong.I didnt get the "reverse argument " funda.

    DanaJ Site Admin
    Joined
    01 Jan 2009
    Posted:
    2567 messages
    Followed by:
    416 members
    Thanked:
    605 times
    GMAT Score:
    770
    Post Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:49 am
    I feel like the two conclusions outlined by you are not sufficiently different to warrant a huge discussion. Both have their merits: yours is more about sticking to the exact wording of the argument (which is very important in CR, for sure!), while mine kind of sees past the mentioning of "people who claim this and that" and refers to the general perception that wealth generated by the use resources helps improve the environment. I feel like they're strikingly similar and picking one or the other does not affect in any way the argument as a whole.

    Regarding E: our argument states (either as a conclusion or as a subconclusion, whichever way you feel is best) that:

    wealth generated by utilizing resources -------> use it to improve the environment

    Option E is the reverse argument in the sense that it goes like so:

    concern for improving the environment ------> wealth

    As you can see, the two do not match, i.e. E changes the sequence of cause - consequence. In the argument, the wealth is the cause for improvements in environment, while in E the environment is the cause for wealth.

    Hope this makes sense!

    Thanked by: gunjan1208, spaniard
    mundasingh123 GMAT Titan Default Avatar
    Joined
    15 Jan 2010
    Posted:
    2330 messages
    Followed by:
    23 members
    Thanked:
    55 times
    Post Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:38 am
    DanaJ wrote:
    Regarding E: our argument states (either as a conclusion or as a subconclusion, whichever way you feel is best) that:

    wealth generated by utilizing resources -------> use it to improve the environment

    Option E is the reverse argument in the sense that it goes like so:

    concern for improving the environment ------> wealth

    As you can see, the two do not match, i.e. E changes the sequence of cause - consequence. In the argument, the wealth is the cause for improvements in environment, while in E the environment is the cause for wealth.

    Hope this makes sense!
    Thanks Dana for explaining this so clearly.

    Thanked by: spaniard
    maddy2u Rising GMAT Star
    Joined
    07 Jan 2010
    Posted:
    32 messages
    Thanked:
    1 times
    GMAT Score:
    710
    Post Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:53 am
    Answer IMO is A

    purplespen Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
    Joined
    12 Jan 2011
    Posted:
    1 messages
    Post Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:52 pm
    IMO A

    bohemian86 Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
    Joined
    17 Mar 2011
    Posted:
    8 messages
    Post Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:51 pm
    A

    tailoc Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
    Joined
    15 Jun 2011
    Posted:
    17 messages
    Thanked:
    1 times
    Post Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:53 am
    A is correct because A explain "diminish wealth", causing by environmental policies.
    also, C weaken reasoning; B and D,E is true, but isn't mentioned in premises.

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 vipulgoyal 32 topics
    2 hemant_rajput 23 topics
    3 guerrero 18 topics
    4 abhirup1711 17 topics
    5 sana.noor 16 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    211 posts
    2 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    137 posts
    3 image description Jim@StratusPrep

    Stratus Prep

    60 posts
    4 image description Jon@Admissionado

    Admissionado

    49 posts
    5 image description David@VeritasPrep

    Veritas Prep

    31 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts