No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
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.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
So we have to find the answer that say the law is "necessary"
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.>>>Demand is continuing steady >>> Weaken
Right?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Yucaipa tree population
This topic has expert replies
-
uptowngirl92
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:08 pm
- Location: Kolkata,India
- Thanked: 7 times
- GMAT Score:670
-
umaa
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:32 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:1 members
IMO B.uptowngirl92 wrote:No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
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.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
So we have to find the answer that say the law is "necessary"
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.>>>Demand is continuing steady >>> Weaken
Right?
As you already know, A, D and E are wrong.
C is wrong because, Country X is trying to maintain Yucaipa tree population in it. It doesn't need to worry about other countries and the effect.
B is correct because, if Yucaipa tree oil is not used in any other consumer good other than cosmetics, then if X bans using Yucaipa tree oil for cosmetics, then it can maintain Yucaipa tree population.
What we think, we become
-
perfectstranger
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:06 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
uptowngirl92 wrote:No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.-- THIS STRENGTHEN THE ARGUMENT SINCE THE ASSUMPTION UNDERLYING IS Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics---
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. --- WRONG SINCE THE STEM USED PRESENT PERFECT HOWEVER THE CHOICE USES FUTURE TENSE SO IT IS OUT OF SCOPE--
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.--IF THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAN PROHIBITING YUCAIPA TREE BECOME EXTINCT AS THIS FACTOR--
So we have to find the answer that say the law is "necessary"
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.>>>Demand is continuing steady >>> Weaken
Right?
Please do not post answers visibly . Please hide them or post them later after the discussion.
-
bignasty666
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 am
- Thanked: 1 times
THINK THE ANSWER SHOULD BE E...BEST OF WORST CHOICES.uptowngirl92 wrote:No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
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.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.
So we have to find the answer that say the law is "necessary"
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.>>>Demand is continuing steady >>> Weaken
Right?
-
Spring2009
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:14 am
- Thanked: 2 times
Should be C.
If the demand for the oil is high, the law is still necessary.
If the law is repealed, the tree population even decrease more.
If the demand for the oil is high, the law is still necessary.
If the law is repealed, the tree population even decrease more.
-
mehravikas
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
pandeyvineet24
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:14 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Thanked: 17 times
C in my opinion.
The bold portion supports that necessity of the law.
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.
The bold portion supports that necessity of the law.
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.
-
arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
This is a question which appeared in the "Peterson master GMAT test 2"
the orignal answer is D but i feel it should have been C.
Guys can anybody expalain if OA could be correct??
the orignal answer is D but i feel it should have been C.
Guys can anybody expalain if OA could be correct??
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
-
martin.jonson007
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
- Thanked: 2 times
This ques seems to be wrongly copied at first place...
It is so strange that argument says But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed. WITHOUT GIVING A SINGLE REASON ....! HOW IT CAN USE WORD CLEARLY , WHEN NOT AN IOTA IS GIVEN TO JUSTIFY THAT...
It is so strange that argument says But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed. WITHOUT GIVING A SINGLE REASON ....! HOW IT CAN USE WORD CLEARLY , WHEN NOT AN IOTA IS GIVEN TO JUSTIFY THAT...
-
hardik.jadeja
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
- Thanked: 87 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:730
Yes, your reasoning is correct. The answer must be C.uptowngirl92 wrote: So we have to find the answer that say the law is "necessary"
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.>>>Demand is continuing steady >>> Weaken
Right?
Are you sure OA is D? Even MGMAT experts, including Ron, feel that the answer has to be C. Refer this thread: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/gma ... t4404.htmlarora007 wrote: This is a question which appeared in the "Peterson master GMAT test 2"
the orignal answer is D but i feel it should have been C.
Guys can anybody expalain if OA could be correct??
