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

Redeem

a difficult cr!!!

Expert replies
by [email protected] » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:07 am
Guyz need help in understanding this question...


"4. Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
"



The OA is B. please explain this this answer choice with other options....
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by killer1387 » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:36 am
Some environmentalists --> there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists --> because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
--> We cant infer this from anywhere in argument because some environmentalist say economical other grp say non-economical.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
--> its true as per argument

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
--> we dont know any thing about "most"

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
--> Only is the strong world we obviously dont know if thats the only claim made.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
--> cant say as per argument.

B is the best.
Join the discussion

by GmatKiss » Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:42 am
[email protected] wrote:Guyz need help in understanding this question...


"4. Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment. - Yes, But its just a mean inference.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a non economic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment. - Perfect

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so. - AWKWARD
"

The OA is B. please explain this this answer choice with other options....
Join the discussion