• NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    Hundreds of Questions Highly Detailed Reporting Expert Explanations TAKE A FREE GMAT QUIZ
  • 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

LSAT--Columnist

This topic has 1 expert reply and 45 member replies
Goto page Next

LSAT--Columnist

Post
Columnist: Much of North America and western
Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid
rain and better air quality now than five decades
ago. Though this may be due largely to policies
advocated by environmentalists, it nonetheless
lends credibility to the claims of people who
reject predictions of imminent ecological doom
and argue that environmental policies that
excessively restrict the use of natural resources
may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and
sustain the policies that brought about these
improvements.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens
the columnist’s reasoning?
(A) Nations sustain their wealth largely through
industrial use of the natural resources found
within their boundaries.
(B) The more advanced the technology used in a
nation’s industries, the greater is that nation’s
ability to devote a portion of its resources to
social programs.
(C) A majority of ecological disasters arise from
causes that are beyond human control.
(D) If a compromise between the proponents of
economic growth and the environmentalists had
been enacted rather than the current policies,
the environment would have seen significantly
less improvement.
(E) The concern demonstrated by a nation for the
health and integrity of its natural ecosystems
leads to an increase in that nation’s wealth.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member
Joined
31 Jan 2010
Posted:
748 messages
Followed by:
3 members
Upvotes:
46
Facebook Logo
Post
A. Correct. Last line states "restrict the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary...." and A stregthens this.
B. arg does not focus on advanced tech and social programs. so resources devoted to social prog is not releavnt
C.Out of scope
D. this weakens the arg
E. this weakens the arg

_________________
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blogspot.com/

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
06 Jan 2010
Posted:
549 messages
Followed by:
3 members
Upvotes:
16
Test Date:
TBD
Target GMAT Score:
750
Post
not clear can you explain it in more details....by stating the conclusion

Regards
PHil

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Site Admin
Joined
01 Jan 2009
Posted:
2567 messages
Followed by:
550 members
Upvotes:
712
GMAT Score:
770
Facebook Logo
Post
Received a PM.

The reasoning goes as follows:
- there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
- this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements

The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.

A is spot on. If the wealth of a nation is generated by the use of its resources, then we actually do need to use these resources or else we can't pay for the environmental improvements.

B may be true, but there's no mentioning of the costs. What if technology is not that expensive (I know it sounds silly, but you need to take into account only what's given and avoid making assumptions)? Besides, social programs do not necessarily mean environmental programs.

C - could be true, but does not affect the argument of wealth and environmental improvements.

D - could be true, but does not reference the conclusion, i.e. no mentioning of wealth.

E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
06 Jan 2010
Posted:
549 messages
Followed by:
3 members
Upvotes:
16
Test Date:
TBD
Target GMAT Score:
750
Post
Thankyou Dana....It makes sense now!

Warm Regards,
Phil

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
02 Feb 2010
Posted:
37 messages
Facebook Logo
Post
DanaJ wrote:
Received a PM.

The reasoning goes as follows:
- there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
- this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements

The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.

A is spot on. If the wealth of a nation is generated by the use of its resources, then we actually do need to use these resources or else we can't pay for the environmental improvements.

B may be true, but there's no mentioning of the costs. What if technology is not that expensive (I know it sounds silly, but you need to take into account only what's given and avoid making assumptions)? Besides, social programs do not necessarily mean environmental programs.

C - could be true, but does not affect the argument of wealth and environmental improvements.

D - could be true, but does not reference the conclusion, i.e. no mentioning of wealth.

E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).
Dana,

Could you please explain how to arrive at the conclusion "wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment."


Thanks in advance.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
23 Nov 2010
Posted:
123 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
5
Target GMAT Score:
800
Facebook Logo
Post
A !


In the passage it says -

environmental policies that
excessively restrict the use of natural resources
may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and
sustain the policies that brought about these
improvements.



The statement in A, clearly suggests and strengthens the same.

(A) Nations sustain their wealth largely through
industrial use of the natural resources found
within their boundaries.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
30 Nov 2010
Posted:
16 messages
Post
Clear A

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Posted:
2330 messages
Followed by:
26 members
Upvotes:
56
Facebook Logo
Post
DanaJ wrote:
Received a PM.
The reasoning goes as follows:
- there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
- this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements
The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.
E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).
Hi DanaJ,
Firstly , I think the conclusion is something different .
The columnist concludes that there is credibility in claims of people argue that environmental policies that
excessively restrict the use of natural resources
may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and
sustain the policies that brought about these
improvements.
Your conclusion " that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment. " may serve as a subconlusion on the basisof which a bigger conclusion may be reached.
Please correct me in case i am wrong.
can you please explain why E is wrong.I didnt get the "reverse argument " funda.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Site Admin
Joined
01 Jan 2009
Posted:
2567 messages
Followed by:
550 members
Upvotes:
712
GMAT Score:
770
Facebook Logo
Post
I feel like the two conclusions outlined by you are not sufficiently different to warrant a huge discussion. Both have their merits: yours is more about sticking to the exact wording of the argument (which is very important in CR, for sure!), while mine kind of sees past the mentioning of "people who claim this and that" and refers to the general perception that wealth generated by the use resources helps improve the environment. I feel like they're strikingly similar and picking one or the other does not affect in any way the argument as a whole.

Regarding E: our argument states (either as a conclusion or as a subconclusion, whichever way you feel is best) that:

wealth generated by utilizing resources -------> use it to improve the environment

Option E is the reverse argument in the sense that it goes like so:

concern for improving the environment ------> wealth

As you can see, the two do not match, i.e. E changes the sequence of cause - consequence. In the argument, the wealth is the cause for improvements in environment, while in E the environment is the cause for wealth.

Hope this makes sense!

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Posted:
2330 messages
Followed by:
26 members
Upvotes:
56
Facebook Logo
Post
DanaJ wrote:
Regarding E: our argument states (either as a conclusion or as a subconclusion, whichever way you feel is best) that:

wealth generated by utilizing resources -------> use it to improve the environment

Option E is the reverse argument in the sense that it goes like so:

concern for improving the environment ------> wealth

As you can see, the two do not match, i.e. E changes the sequence of cause - consequence. In the argument, the wealth is the cause for improvements in environment, while in E the environment is the cause for wealth.

Hope this makes sense!
Thanks Dana for explaining this so clearly.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
07 Jan 2010
Posted:
32 messages
Upvotes:
2
GMAT Score:
710
Facebook Logo
Post
Answer IMO is A

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
12 Jan 2011
Posted:
1 messages
Post
IMO A

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
17 Mar 2011
Posted:
12 messages
Post
A

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
15 Jun 2011
Posted:
17 messages
Upvotes:
1
Post
A is correct because A explain "diminish wealth", causing by environmental policies.
also, C weaken reasoning; B and D,E is true, but isn't mentioned in premises.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • The Princeton Review
    FREE GMAT Exam
    Know how you'd score today for $0

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    The Princeton Review
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep

Top First Responders*

1 Jay@ManhattanReview 69 first replies
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow 66 first replies
3 GMATGuruNY 42 first replies
4 Ian Stewart 25 first replies
5 Scott@TargetTestPrep 15 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

Most Active Experts

1 image description Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

200 posts
2 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

92 posts
3 image description Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

91 posts
4 image description Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

76 posts
5 image description GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

64 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts