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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Yucaipa tree-bark

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 12 times
by piyush_nitt » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:19 am
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 But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 amFollowed by: 4 members
Location: India
Thanked: 18 times
GMAT Score:710

Re: Yucaipa tree-bark

by rahulg83 » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:18 am
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..
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Sao Paulo-Brazil
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:660

Re: Yucaipa tree-bark

by shibal » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:09 am
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....
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:11 am
Thanked: 2 times

by gmatguy16 » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:39 pm
IMO C. whats the oa ,please?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 2 times

by anshulseth » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:25 pm
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.
Asset
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 12 times

by piyush_nitt » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:23 am
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
Location: San Francisco
Thanked: 14 times

by mbadrew » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:13 am
D doesn't make any sense and it takes the argument out of context.
The OA should be E.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:730

by mikeCoolBoy » Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:11 am
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:32 am

by ashley.com » Sun May 15, 2016 3:55 am
My answer is option C
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1