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

Redeem

Environment & Environmentalists

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

Environment & Environmentalists

by komal » Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:10 am
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.

OA B powerscore CR bible
Last edited by komal on Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:23 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by bpgen » Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:46 am
It's B

Look out the word 'some' in "Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment." So we could eliminate Many/Most. Answer A,E are irrelevant.
"Ambition is the path to success. Persistence is the vehicle you arrive in."
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:33 am
I would like to open this CR again.


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.


Ist --> Some environmentalists question ...
2nd -> Many environmentalists claim ...

Which one is appeal ["Some environmentalists appeal ..."] ?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:31 am

by kaushals » Sat May 01, 2010 11:58 am
Still havnt find any concrete explanation. Experts required.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:18 am
Can someone elaborate about each options?

Source: PowerScore GMAT CR Bible, Chapter 4, page No 86
OR
Source: PowerScore LSAT LR Bible, Chapter 4, page No 86


Ist --> Some environmentalists question ...
2nd -> Many environmentalists claim ... => talk in favor of defensibility. So, I believe that 2nd one is appealing and say "nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy". It is a noneconomic justification.

SOME is sub-set of MANY. So we can so ahead for B
C: Most environmentalists ... => MOST is incorrect
D: Worse than B and uses extreme word ONLY
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:28 pm
A. imprudent means without much thought. nowhere in the argument we r talking abt this
B. Correct
C. only some economist r questioning the economic reasons and not many
D. As the argument proceeds we are goin from some environmentalist to many environmentalist.in such a case only some environmentalist can talk abt both first and second sentence together..
here it is mentioned as many
E. we r not sure if "intrinsic value" can be called as sound noneconomic justification

komal wrote: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.

OA B powerscore CR bible
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:38 pm
received a pm.

Let's say that:

"All dogs are black."

From that statement, we can properly infer ALL of the following:

"Most dogs are black."

"Many dogs are black."

"Some dogs are black."

This is because if it is true that:

"All dogs are black"

then each of the following must also be true:

"More than half of all dogs are black"

"At least one dog is black".


"Most" means "more than half".
"Some" means "at least one".

So, we have a hierarchy:

All
Most
Many/Some

in which we can infer DOWNWARDS but NOT upwards.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:53 pm
"Some" economists are arguing that it would be "wrong" to exploit the environment; that it would lead to "no economic benefits". They argue this even though they acknowledge that society may save money by destroying important features of the environement. Their only evidence is that there is "intrinsic value" in nature.

Thus, the environmentalist's argument presents a paradox. They argue that harming the environment won't lead to economic benefits even while allowing that NOT harming the environment may cost more than harming it. So, in order for them to hold their position, they must be appealing to some noneonomic justification in arguing against harming important features of the environment.

Let's look at choice B:

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

So, yes, they are appealing to a noneconomic justification. Are they "questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment"? Well if some people are "defending" exploitation of the environment, then, yes, the environmentalists are definitely "questioning the defensibility" of that position.

_________

@akhp77: your strategy of avoiding extreme language in inference questions is a good one. But there is an important corollary to this strategy that many ignore:

If extreme inferences are unlikely, then TENTATIVE inferences are more likely.

So avoid extreme language in inference but also be partial to tentative language. Choice B--the correct answer--uses the tentative word "some".

Examples of tentative language:

--not necessarily
--at least
--some
--not only

___

@akhp77: also, in your post above you said that SOME is a subset of MANY. This is incorrect.

This is correct: SOME = MANY = AT LEAST ONE
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:19 am
word JUSTIFICATION is there in both options i.e. in B as well as E

based on that , E is not less preferred than B

not sound reasoning .... need some good points to cancel out E or may be B itself...
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:39 am
Hi TestLuv,

Not very sure how to eliminate E (only thing comes in mind is ...this choice & A both make assertions without any mention of 'environmentalists'. Since argument is about enviromentalists' views, correct choice should show that it is their views...not as an independent view). Is there any other reason for eliminating E
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:30 pm
pnk wrote:Hi TestLuv,

Not very sure how to eliminate E (only thing comes in mind is ...this choice & A both make assertions without any mention of 'environmentalists'. Since argument is about enviromentalists' views, correct choice should show that it is their views...not as an independent view). Is there any other reason for eliminating E
It can be inferred that choice E is the environmentalists' position. But that doesn't mean it must be true. If choice E started off with "Some environmentalists hold..." then it would have been a proper inference.

In an inference question if you learn that "some people think X" then it can be inferred that some people think X must be true--it can't be inferred that X itself must be true.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:02 pm
Thanks a ton TestLuv. You are simply THE BEST. Thanks
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:14 pm
Testluv wrote:
pnk wrote:Hi TestLuv,

Not very sure how to eliminate E (only thing comes in mind is ...this choice & A both make assertions without any mention of 'environmentalists'. Since argument is about enviromentalists' views, correct choice should show that it is their views...not as an independent view). Is there any other reason for eliminating E
It can be inferred that choice E is the environmentalists' position. But that doesn't mean it must be true. If choice E started off with "Some environmentalists hold..." then it would have been a proper inference.

In an inference question if you learn that "some people think X" then it can be inferred that some people think X must be true--it can't be inferred that X itself must be true.
Testluv,

You have made a good point...

but

I found a paradox in yr comments... like u said...

=========================

If choice E started off with "Some environmentalists hold..." then it would have been a proper inference.

In an inference question if you learn that "some people think X" then it can be inferred that some people think X must be true--it can't be inferred that X itself must be true.
========================

You said when argument saying SOME then it can't be taken as a general inference.. then why we shud bother that whether SOME people THINK OR HOLD the claim , after all they are SOME PEOPLE (as u emphasized)

Thnaks!
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:01 am
Hi,

not sure where the paradox is.

If "some people think x" then it must be true that:

--at least one peson thinks x.

But x itself doesn't have to be true.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:09 am
Testluv wrote:Hi,

not sure where the paradox is.

If "some people think x" then it must be true that:

--at least one peson thinks x.

But x itself doesn't have to be true.
Yes... but also mentioned there that if it reads like

Some environmentalists hold ( in place of think)..." then it would have been a proper inference. Then E option wud be perfect...

my point is that even if it read HOLD in place of THINK still why E option can be consider Right b'coz after all they are SOME people not the all who hold such views...

i hope u got my point...
Top
Post new topic Post Reply