• 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

Ivory Billed Woodpecker

This topic has expert replies

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:49 am
Choice B is designed to be a specific type of distraction, let me explain and you can tell me what you think. The way that I would describe the reason that B is not correct is this: B indicates that possible evidence for the presence of the ivory-billed is not there (i.e. the peculiar sound of the tapping). Yet it is not stated that this sound will always be heard. So this is what I would call sufficient evidence, but not necessary evidence. If you have the sound, then you likely have the woodpecker (it is sufficient). But the absence of the sound, does not mean the absence of the woodpecker (not neccessary).

On the other hand, choice D is directly weakens the only evidence that they have for the ivory-billed, the large white wing patches. It is true that since the patches are present for both types of birds it is still possible that this is the ivory-billed, but since that bird has not been seen for decades it is very damaging to have the only evidence in favor of the bird being an ivory-billed turn on not to be a true indication of that bird. (As to the video versus observations, I think that seeing the wing patches on the video can be considered an "observation.")
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Thanked: 4 times
GMAT Score:700

by samarpan_bschool » Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:36 am
B indicates that possible evidence for the presence of the ivory-billed is not there (i.e. the peculiar sound of the tapping). Yet it is not stated that this sound will always be heard. So this is what I would call sufficient evidence, but not necessary evidence. If you have the sound, then you likely have the woodpecker (it is sufficient). But the absence of the sound, does not mean the absence of the woodpecker (not neccessary).
I missed this point - Thanks