Rings around the Tree

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:42 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Rings around the Tree

by Stockmoose16 » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:37 pm
The popular notion that a tree's age can be determined by counting the number of internal rings in its trunk is generally true. However, to help regulate the internal temperature of the tree, the outermost layers of wood of the Brazilian ash often peel away when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, leaving the tree with fewer rings than it would otherwise have. So only if the temperature in the Brazilian ash's environment never exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit will its rings be a reliable measure of the tree's age.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

A) The growth of new rings in a tree is not a function of levels of precipitation.
B) Only the Brazilian ash loses rings because of excessive heat.
C) Only one day of temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to cause the Brazilian ash to lose a ring.
D) The internal rings of all trees are of uniform thickness.
E) The number of rings that will be lost when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit is not predictable.

The OA is E, but what's wrong with C

The MGMAT explanation says that the number of days it takes for the tree to lose a ring in excessive heat is irrelevant. But why wouldn't it be relevant? If it only takes one day to lose a ring, then the author's conclusion, "only if the temperature in the Brazilian ash's environment never exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit will its rings be a reliable measure of the tree's age," would be true. If C had said, "it takes 2 days for the tree to lose a ring," the author's conclusion would be questionable, since one day above 95 degrees would not cause the tree to lose a ring. Therefore, saying that it takes "1 day to lose a ring" is a relevant assumption, right?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:56 pm
the conclusion is : if temperature exceeds 75C, it is no longer possible to use the rings to predict the trees age

C: even if did take more than 1 day with temp greater than 75C for a tree to lose a ring, it will not hurt the conclusion, it therefore is not the conclusion

E: if it were possible to predict the rings the tree would lose above 75C, then one could still use the rings to predict the age (knowing exactly how how rings would be lost), it hurts the conclusion. it is therefore necessary for the conclusion to hold

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:19 am
imo:E

negate it,,

E) The number of rings that will be lost when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit is predictable.


If its predictable then we can predict the trees age..

argument falls apart

thus E

Legendary Member
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:44 pm
Location: UK
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:680

by rohangupta83 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:49 am
imo E

what's wrong with C?

If one day of temperature causes the tree to loose 1 ring then one can count the number of days in the year when the temperature was more than 95 and add those many number of years to the Brazilian trees' age. This would make the conclusion unstable and thus cannot be the assumption.

E on the other hand says that the number of rings lost is unpredictable when the temperature is more than 95C. Therefore, only when the temperature is less than 95C can we count all the rings of the Brazilian trees and determine the trees' age

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Thu May 12, 2016 12:11 pm
It seems to me that the right answer is E