BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Extinction

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Extinction

by siddus » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:14 am
Extinction is the way of nature. Scientists estimate that over half of the species that have ever come into existence on this planet were already extinct before humans developed even the most primitive of tools. This constant natural process of species emergence and extinction, however, is ignored by those who wish to trace the blame for more recent extinctions to humanity's use of technology, with its consequent effects on the environment. These people must be made to understand that the species that have become extinct in modern times would have become extinct by now even if humans had never acquired technology.

Which one of the following identifies a reasoning error in the passage?

(A) The author mistakenly assumes that technology has not caused any harm to the environment.
(B) The author ignores the fact that some species that are not yet extinct are in danger of extinction.
(C) The author fails to consider that there are probably species in existence that have not yet been identified and studied by scientists.
(D) The author cites scientists who support the theory that over half of all species that ever existed have become extinct, but fails to mention any scientists who do not support that theory.
(E) The author provides no specific evidence that the species that have become extinct in modern times are the same species that would have become extinct in the absence of human technology.

Any takers for this one? Kindly post your explanations...

I was stuck between A and E, then I managed to eliminate A but I am still not convinced with the way the right answer E is presented.

Cheers
Sid.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:15 am
This is a subtle cause-effect analysis question.

The author's argument is:

Effect: Recent extinction of animals
Wrong cause: Technology
Right cause: Inevitable extinction

For this cause to be linked to the effect, it must be clear that the animals that would have inevitably died out are the same ones that are dying out now, in order to rule technology out as a factor.

A. He assumes no such thing.

B. This is inconsequential to the argument, as endangered species are irrelevant.

C. Even if there are unidentified species, this does not affect the discussion about species that we know have gone/ are going extinct.

D. This is not a reasoning error. At best it is only a weakness in the evidence provided.

E. Exactly what we are looking for.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:30 pm

by anchit » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:32 am
E tells us that the author did not mention if the species that are becoming extinct now would have been extinct anyways, and this is an error on his part.

while answering this question, i would look for options, which if false, make the argument more logical...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by siddus » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:46 am
@albatross86

The author states that -

"..These people must be made to understand that the species that have become extinct in modern times would have become extinct by now even if humans had never acquired technology."

So he is stressing on the fact that the species that have become extinct are the same ones which would have become extinct even in the presence of technology. If that is true then how will providing evidence (say name of the species etc.) help make the argument stronger?

Also, I feel that the flaw in the argument is that the author assumes that what has happened in the past (extinction due to a natural process) will be true even in the future. So in the process he is discrediting the fact that technology could have been a possible cause of the extinction.

Initially I misread option (A) as "The author mistakenly assumes that technology has not caused any harm to the extinct species". I know this is stupid but reading it this way makes it a very good choice for an answer?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:53 am
His reasoning for coming to the conclusion (that you highlighted in bold) is that many species inevitably go extinct. This reasoning is flawed because the species that are going extinct now may not be the same ones that would have gone extinct. It is not a true statement, it is his conclusion.

If it were true that say dodos would have gone extinct anyway, and they are extinct now, we can say that this was caused by the way of nature, and not by the human use of technology. Thus evidence about which species would have gone extinct, and which species have actually ended up going extinct would help to establish the cause-effect and thus strengthen the argument.

Your misread option A is slightly better than the original one, but I still like E much better. Even if technology had effected the extinct species, this does not mean in caused them to become extinct and thus does not affect the reasoning of the argument.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:30 pm

by anchit » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:55 am
@Siddus:
E states that the author does not give any evidence that the modern day species would have become extinct and that may be the flaw in the reasoning...

what do you say...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by siddus » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:03 am
@albatross86, anchit - Thank you for your patience in explaining this. I picked E myself based on the same principles you have provided but I just wanted to get my head around it a bit more....
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:15 am
E may be correct...

but

still cudn't find solid reason on why A is wrong....
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:25 am
The solid reason is that the author does NOT assume any such thing. If you read the passage, he only says that the extinction is not caused by human technology, there is no mention of its effect on the environment
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:41 am
Not Convincing...!

Experts.. Plz comments...
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:50 am
Fair enough, I respect that you really want to be convinced. I'm sure an expert can deal with the explanation better, but here's my last word anyway:

The only mention of effects on environment in the passage is here:

...however, is ignored by those who wish to trace the blame for more recent extinctions to humanity's use of technology, with its consequent effects on the environment.

The author is actually stating that humanity's use of technology does in fact have consequent effects on the environment. He only objects to the CAUSE - EFFECT connection made by those who wish to trace the blame for the extinction of species to these effects.

His reasoning does not depend on the assumption that technology has not caused any harm to the environment. It only depends on the assumption that the species that would have inevitably gone extinct, are the same ones that are currently going / recently have gone extinct.

If he had said, "Humanity's use of technology has no harmful effects on the environment and thus could not have caused the extinction of animals" , then A is the perfect answer.

However he says "The extinction would have happened with or without humans & technology, and thus human use of technology cannot be blamed"

If it is still unconvincing, you are a tough egg to crack! :)

Good luck![/u]
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:13 am
albatross86 wrote:Fair enough, I respect that you really want to be convinced. I'm sure an expert can deal with the explanation better, but here's my last word anyway:

The only mention of effects on environment in the passage is here:

...however, is ignored by those who wish to trace the blame for more recent extinctions to humanity's use of technology, with its consequent effects on the environment.

The author is actually stating that humanity's use of technology does in fact have consequent effects on the environment. He only objects to the CAUSE - EFFECT connection made by those who wish to trace the blame for the extinction of species to these effects.

His reasoning does not depend on the assumption that technology has not caused any harm to the environment. It only depends on the assumption that the species that would have inevitably gone extinct, are the same ones that are currently going / recently have gone extinct.

If he had said, "Humanity's use of technology has no harmful effects on the environment and thus could not have caused the extinction of animals" , then A is the perfect answer.

However he says "The extinction would have happened with or without humans & technology, and thus human use of technology cannot be blamed"

If it is still unconvincing, you are a tough egg to crack! :)

Good luck![/u]


I wud only say

Mind Your Language...!

If u feel that superior abt yrself then jus go to Exam Hall...!

==============================================

Experts, i hope u understood subtaltities... plz comments...
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:15 am
Strange, I don't see where I portrayed myself as superior or used any unwarranted language.

FYI "Tough egg to crack" is just a metaphor for someone who is tough to convince.

I wonder why you are offended.

Anyway, as I said, good luck and I hope an expert can answer your question! :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanp_l » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:26 am
Long thread.......

Just wanted to say that i found E correct and my reasons go below:

I am required to find a flaw in the argument. The argument says that some species would have gone extinct anyways even without the use of technology by the humans. And here the author mentions "must be made to understand". When he says so, he doesn't have any evidence that he provides on behalf of his statement. E clearly points to a flaw.

A better argument would have started as " These people must consider the species e.g. ....".
Sandy
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1