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

Redeem

Expert please help

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

Expert please help

by paes » Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:45 pm
When the supply of a given resource dwindles, alternative technologies allowing the use of different resources develop, and demand for the resource that was in short supply naturally declines. Then the existing supplies of that resource satisfy whatever demand remains. Among the once-dwindling resources that are now in more than adequate supply are flint for arrowheads, trees usable for schooner masts, and good mules. Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion?

(A) The masts and hulls of some sailing ships built today are still made of wood.
(B) There are considerably fewer mules today than there were 100 years ago.
(C) The cost of some new technologies is often so high that the companies developing them might actually lose money at first.
(D) Dwindling supplies of a natural resource often result in that resource's costing more to use.
(E) The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change.

[spoiler]OA among c/d/e
Please explain your pick.[/spoiler]
Last edited by paes on Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:57 pm
IMO the answer is E.

The conclusion of the passage says that we can never run out of natural resources because new technologies replace old ones.

E says that important natural resources (air and water) are unaffected by technology. If this were true how could the author possible conclude what he concludes?

Could you please confirm the OA?

Thanks,

Jared
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:26 pm
I will go with 'D'. Pls quote the source and OA.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:12 pm
sk818020 wrote:IMO the answer is E.

The conclusion of the passage says that we can never run out of natural resources because new technologies replace old ones.

E says that important natural resources (air and water) are unaffected by technology. If this were true how could the author possible conclude what he concludes?

Could you please confirm the OA?

Thanks,

Jared
OA is E only.
But read E again, It says :
The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change.

it means that the requirement will remain same.
While the argument says that we will find some new resources to fulfill the requirement.
So E is not weakening the requirement.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:13 pm
paddle_sweep wrote:I will go with 'D'. Pls quote the source and OA.
source : LSAT
I also selected D, but anyway was not convinced with any choice.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:32 pm
D certainly be not the answer. actually conclusion of the passage is not monitory. so how can the option which tells about the cost can weaken the conclusion. so option D tells about the cost which cannt weaken the conclusion so E is the best answer which says that we require always air and water inspite of new technology

example to produce power from high tech power plants we require coal , water which are natural resources

power from nuclear energy we require water that why all nuclear power plants are new sea.

solar energy require sun light

wind power requires air

i hope its crystal clear now
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:50 am
IMO E.

Premises:
When the supply of a given resource dwindles, alternative technologies allowing the use of different resources develop
demand for the resource that was in short supply naturally declines.
existing supplies of that resource satisfy whatever demand remains.

Conclusion:
Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources.

(A) The masts and hulls of some sailing ships built today are still made of wood.
This has no link to conclusion. Author uses mules statement as just an example scenario. Hence Ruled out.

(B) There are considerably fewer mules today than there were 100 years ago.
Same reason as above.

(C) The cost of some new technologies is often so high that the companies developing them might actually lose money at first.

Doesnt affect the conclusion. Brings into picture "money" which is irrelevant to the argument.

(D) Dwindling supplies of a natural resource often result in that resource’s costing more to use.

At first read, I did not understand the meaning of this sentence. If anyone is like me, then here is what it means:
When there is low supply of natural resources, the cost of using them will be high. The cost again is relating to monetary terms which is irrelevant to the argument.

(E) The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change.

This links itself to the conclusion. The conclusion says that technology can replace the use of important natural resources. option E is just complicating the sentence. Let us break it down:

biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water
What does this mean?
Example Drinking and breathing.
Drinking and breathing are unaffected by technological change.
No matter how the technology changes, Drinking and breathing will continue to happen and thus will keep utilisng the resources. There is no replacement for these. Hence, they will run out one day.

This undermines the conclusion.

@paes -
The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change.

it means that the requirement will remain same.
You got the explanation right till here. argument says that we will find some new resources using technological changes to fulfill the requirement for all natural reources. But option E says requirements for water and air are unaffected by technological change. Hence it is undermining.

Hope this helps!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:01 am
Thanks kvcp.

From your explanation, I got a different explanation which looks more appealing to me.

Here it is :

E says :


Requirements for clean air and water(X) is not going to change.

The meaning of the word requirements is critical here

suppose the requirement for clean water and air is -> forests and rain only

So if these requirements will not change then it means that scientists cann't find the alternative resource to get the water/clean air.

Hence E is weakening the argument.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:50 am
paes wrote:Thanks kvcp.

From your explanation, I got a different explanation which looks more appealing to me.

Here it is :

E says :


Requirements for clean air and water(X) is not going to change.

The meaning of the word requirements is critical here

suppose the requirement for clean water and air is -> forests and rain only

So if these requirements will not change then it means that scientists cann't find the alternative resource to get the water/clean air.

Hence E is weakening the argument.
I believe Biological requirements means Drinking, Breathing... You say they are Forests and rain.. Slight discrepancy in one of our thoughts....

Can anyone else help with their thoughts?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:41 am
Thanked: 7 times

by gmat1011 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:04 am
I think the key in E is the use of the expression "natural resources" at the end --- air, water are natural resources

The conclusion is that we will never run out of natural resources because new tech. will replace old (and demand for old will adjust).

But demand (I read "requirement" as 'demand') for air, water are not affected by tech. E tells us. Thus, we can run out of some important natural resources (though not expressly stated air, water can reasonably be held to be "important" - I think one needs to draw that link here --- what is "important"?) as tech. will not be available to replace them. E seemed right to me first time I read through this one.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:46 am
kvcpk wrote:
paes wrote:Thanks kvcp.

From your explanation, I got a different explanation which looks more appealing to me.

Here it is :

E says :


Requirements for clean air and water(X) is not going to change.

The meaning of the word requirements is critical here

suppose the requirement for clean water and air is -> forests and rain only

So if these requirements will not change then it means that scientists cann't find the alternative resource to get the water/clean air.

Hence E is weakening the argument.
I believe Biological requirements means Drinking, Breathing... You say they are Forests and rain.. Slight discrepancy in one of our thoughts....

Can anyone else help with their thoughts?
I fully agree with E after reading ur explanations...
Infact E was so complex for me to understand that i preferred to keep it out of choices of answers, i just had to choose between C and D.

but i had chosen C, see how...
"Conclusion:
Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources. "

so to undermine the conclusions we try to attack how the new technology will not develop something new to replace older technology....
COST, the initial cost would be so high that the cos. may lose money initially that they would prefer not to venture and thus the technology will not develop. for example: "Nuclear Fusion" it could be costly to develop that it could be that it might never develop...
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!!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:12 am
arora007 wrote: but i had chosen C, see how...
"Conclusion:
Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources. "

so to undermine the conclusions we try to attack how the new technology will not develop something new to replace older technology....
COST, the initial cost would be so high that the cos. may lose money initially that they would prefer not to venture and thus the technology will not develop. for example: "Nuclear Fusion" it could be costly to develop that it could be that it might never develop...
Hi Arora .. I am afraid that would be a dangerous approach.

Let us look at option C again.
(C) The cost of some new technologies is often so high that the companies developing them might actually lose money at first.

It is speaking about "Some new technologies". Conclusion is about all new technologies.

It just says that companies might lose money at first. two key terms here are "might" and "first".
First, It is not for sure that companies will lose money.
Second, They will only lose in the first, even if they lose any.

You are making so many assumptions out of it:
First, You are taking for granted that companies will lose money.
Second, That the companies will only lose in the first, even if they lose any.
Third, Companies wont prefer to invest if they are losing money at first.
Fourth, If companies lose money the technology will not develop.
Fifth, Some new technologies = All new technologies.

It would be a crime to assume so many things on GMAT I believe... Just kidding!!!

The answer choice should straight away weaken the conclusion and should show throw the argument apart.

Let me take another example:
Suppose my statement is "All birds can fly"
A statement that weakens could be "KIWI is a bird that can never fly". I am just giving an example which throws my statement apart.
This is the same thing that is happening in this question.


You are going through a very long route assuming so many things.. Which could be dangerous.

What you say???
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:49 pm
in 2 mins... if things are above ur head... i just try a bit.. and then bypass them... i agree with E after I see the explanation..
I do agree...I need to work hard on my CR
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!!
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:58 am
Location: New York City
Thanked: 188 times
Followed by:120 members
GMAT Score:770

by Tommy Wallach » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:01 pm
Hey All,

I got asked to take this one on by private message, so here I am! First question...who writes these questions? This is the second time I've been brought on to answer a question with incomplete sentences and missing prepositions ("to develop"). If the question isn't written with correct grammar, you can't trust its logical construction either. WHAT IS THE SOURCE? Anyway:

When the supply of a given resource dwindles, alternative technologies allowing the use of different resources develop, and demand for the resource that was in short supply naturally declines. Then the existing supplies of that resource satisfy whatever demand remains. Among the once-dwindling resources that are now in more than adequate supply are flint for arrowheads, trees usable for schooner masts, and good mules. Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources.

Conclusion: We will never run out of important natural resources
Premises: As resource dwindles, new techs come out to use new resources, so demand for old resource declines, then existing satisfies remaining demands
Assumptions: Remaining demands won't eventually run the resource out; there are an infinite number of new resources to tap

Those are two assumptions I came up with on my own. I'm not implying either one is right (I haven't looked at the answer choices yet...but it's always nice to have some predictions in).

WEAKEN:

(A) The masts and hulls of some sailing ships built today are still made of wood.
PROBLEM: This doesn't change the fact that we've been TOLD there's now plenty of wood for the demand.

(B) There are considerably fewer mules today than there were 100 years ago.
PROBLEM: This is an example of a resource that is still ticking downwards, but it doesn't conceptually weaken the idea that we will NEVER run out of important resources (this answer doesn't even tell us we're definitely RUNNING OUT of mules).

(C) The cost of some new technologies is often so high that the companies developing them might actually lose money at first.
PROBLEM: Money has nothing to do with this argument.

(D) Dwindling supplies of a natural resource often result in that resource's costing more to use.
PROBLEM: Again, money has no bearing.

(E) The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change.
ANSWER: We have found a resource that CANNOT be avoided. We always need clean air and clean water. But if these are unaffected by technological change, then these are important resources that we could run out of.

HOWEVER, this question is pretty lame, in my opinion. I don't know where it's from (PEOPLE, QUOTE YOUR SOURCES!), but it's written with lots of errors, and the answer is weak. Even E is problematic, because the examples they chose are resources that naturally replenish in some way (unlike oil or lithium). It's simply the best of a bad batch.

Hope that helps! : )

-t
Tommy Wallach, Company Expert
ManhattanGMAT

If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:30 pm
Thanks Tommy.
Nice explanation.

Source is : LSAT tests

No need to invest more time for a lame problem.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply