This what the stimulus says:
Some environmentalists (meaning: atleast 1) question the prudence of exploiting natural resources.
Justification given: No economic benefits to be gained from them (ie. forests, etc.) -> Economic justification.
Many environmentalists ( meaning: less than half, but sizeable population, say 40%) question the prudence of exploiting natural resources.
Justification given- Nature has intrinsic value -> non economic justification.
The statement "even if economic costs of doing so outweigh.." is not a justification. It serves as a condition to imply that even under the occurrence of such a situation where in eco costs of protecting the resources outweigh the costs of not doing so, we should still not exploit our natural resources.
Now lets look at answer choices:
A) economically imprudent is not implied. Stimulus states that the author questions the prudence of exploiting natural resources, but with respect to which factor is not implied. it could be economical, moral, environment wise etc.
B)some environmentalists appeal to non economic justification- correct.
in our dissection we observe that 40% or many environmentalists observed non economic justification. Some means atleast 1 so, it is fair to imply that some environmentalists appealed to non eco justifications.
C)Most environmentalists - wrong probability indicator (Most means more than half). The whole stimulus talks about some / Many. Most would make this statement fall into subset super set fallacy- ie. small number of instances generalized to make a broad, sweeping conclusion)
D) "provide only a non eco justification" is wrong. Many envi provide both non eco justification and a condition that should hold even in the occurrence of the situation. So the word ONLY makes this option nonviable.
E)Sound non economic justification- wrong. The word sound is a new addition. The author just mentions the justifications but does not describe then as sound/ flawless etc. New topic.
Environmentalist CR - good one
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
fibbonnaci
- MBA Student
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
- Thanked: 98 times
- Followed by:22 members
-
harshavardhanc
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 68 times
- GMAT Score:680
I think, you must have read the theory before this problem in the CR bible. In one of the points it says about "deciding the scope" of the argument. There are two premises here. The first one has "Some" and the second one has "Many". Both of these words make the scope broad.
Now remember, in "Must be true"/inference questions, these "some" and "Many" CANNOT become "Most". We really don't know whether 'many scientists' are 'most of the scientists'. So, do not generalize! (a tip in the bible
). Almost instantaneously, you will strike off C. You need not read the complete sentence! You saved time ! Bounty!
Now as the scope is broad, any option which "states anything with confidence" can be eliminated. Here goes A and E !
A says: "It is...." , So long option A!
E says: "Even if there is no....there is a sound...."
B and D remain.....
B sounds interesting! keep it as a contender, as everything looks as a restatement of the second premise!
D:
Ha ha! they like to play with words! dont' they ? Remember, you just have the information which the author has given. You cannot add any information from outside. Do the two premises anyway indicate that these are the ONLY methods used by scientists? No ? There goes D.
B it is!!!
Now remember, in "Must be true"/inference questions, these "some" and "Many" CANNOT become "Most". We really don't know whether 'many scientists' are 'most of the scientists'. So, do not generalize! (a tip in the bible
). Almost instantaneously, you will strike off C. You need not read the complete sentence! You saved time ! Bounty!Now as the scope is broad, any option which "states anything with confidence" can be eliminated. Here goes A and E !
A says: "It is...." , So long option A!
E says: "Even if there is no....there is a sound...."
B and D remain.....
B sounds interesting! keep it as a contender, as everything looks as a restatement of the second premise!
D:
Ha ha! they like to play with words! dont' they ? Remember, you just have the information which the author has given. You cannot add any information from outside. Do the two premises anyway indicate that these are the ONLY methods used by scientists? No ? There goes D.
B it is!!!
Last edited by harshavardhanc on Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Regards,
Harsha
Harsha
-
fibbonnaci
- MBA Student
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
- Thanked: 98 times
- Followed by:22 members
According to the stimulus, this can be inferred rite?
Hence u state that is true.
And yes, Some is extracted from many envi statement.
The best way to arrive at the answer is to check for possibilities.
Some envi in the first case is not possible.
But some envi in the second case is possible. so you keep this as contender.
Evaluate other options. Others are out right blunders. Only B remains. So choose this!
Hence u state that is true.
And yes, Some is extracted from many envi statement.
The best way to arrive at the answer is to check for possibilities.
Some envi in the first case is not possible.
But some envi in the second case is possible. so you keep this as contender.
Evaluate other options. Others are out right blunders. Only B remains. So choose this!
-
mmslf75
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
Perfect BANG ON !!fibbonnaci wrote:According to the stimulus, this can be inferred rite?
Hence u state that is true.
And yes, Some is extracted from many envi statement.
The best way to arrive at the answer is to check for possibilities.
Some envi in the first case is not possible.
But some envi in the second case is possible. so you keep this as contender.
Evaluate other options. Others are out right blunders. Only B remains. So choose this!
Thanks man,,,
