piyush_nitt 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 But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.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.

OA: D

My answer would be E, for what the argument says is that the law is unnecessary because it does not prevent declination, if there is some other reason by which population is declining, i.e. eating of Y bark by wild animals and the law is only for prohibiting Y use in cosmetics. So this law by itself is trying its best to maintain Y population, so it is not unnecessary in this country..

rahulg83 wrote:

piyush_nitt 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 But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.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.

OA: D

My answer would be E, for what the argument says is that the law is unnecessary because it does not prevent declination, if there is some other reason by which population is declining, i.e. eating of Y bark by wild animals and the law is only for prohibiting Y use in cosmetics. So this law by itself is trying its best to maintain Y population, so it is not unnecessary in this country..

agree... D doesn't weakens the conclusion of repealing the law....

IMO C. whats the oa ,please?

What is the source of your questions.
And plz post the OE along with OA, so as to justify the choice.

I am not able to get the logic behind the OA's in your questions.

anshulseth wrote:What is the source of your questions.
And plz post the OE along with OA, so as to justify the choice.

I am not able to get the logic behind the OA's in your questions.

anshulseth,

Even I don't get the logic behind these OA's thats the reason I am posting on BTG.

Source : Petersons free GMAT test.
https://www.petersons.com/testprep/pract ... r.pft.gmat

I gave a test yesterday and got most of the CR's wrong. I chose C as an answer for this question. I do remember the OA was D. I tried to access the test again so that I can verify the OA but unfortunately couldn't login. You can try accessing the test . It doesnot give you a GMAT like score (gives only right/wrong) but it is worth trying.

Cheers
Piyush

D doesn't make any sense and it takes the argument out of context.
The OA should be E.

In my opinion D can be the correct answer.

Evidence: No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa
tree population as our nation.

Evidence: Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics.
This implies other nations do not.

Evidence: The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population,
at least in this nation.


Conclusion: Because in other nations the don't apply the law, it should be repealed in the author's nation

A way to attack the conclusion is to show that other nations don't need the law but the author's nation does.


a)This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.

if it were true and with the first evidence we would conclude that the nation is able to harvest
Yucaipa trees quickly because the nation has more trees than any other nation even if it experienced
a greater decline.
So the law would not be necessary.


b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.

In the other countries they use Yucaipa tree-bark but they do not
have the law so the law should not be 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.

This does not explain why the other countries do not need the law and why the author's nation does.


d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.

This explains why other nations do not need the law because they can harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics easier
than the author's nations does.


e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

The argument says that the law prohibits the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. If there is another
cause for the destruction of the trees then the law is not necessary because the tree population will decline anyway.

My answer is option C