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

Redeem

in the early 1960's

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

in the early 1960's

by rahul.s » Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:44 am
In the early 1960's, the number of cocoa plants in Colombia began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline: lack of proper nutrients, possibly due to poor soil, or destruction by people. Of these two, lack of proper nutrients is the more likely, since a concurrent decline in the number of coffee plants and pepper plants is believed to have been caused by a lack of proper nutrients, and cocoa plants require many of the same nutrients as coffee and pepper plants do.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

(A) Many people in Colombia usually use coffee and pepper to cook common dishes, but when these become scarce, people replace these with cocoa.
(B) There is no indication that the number of cocoa plants anywhere in Colombia declined in the 1960's because of many cocoa plants not receiving adequate water.
(C) In rural areas of Colombia in the 1960's, cocoa plants were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.
(D) Following the decline in the number of cocoa plants, there was an increase in the number of berry plants, which cocoa plants are known to draw nutrients away from.
(E) In Colombia, coffee plants and pepper plants grow over a wider geographic area than do cocoa plants.

OA: A
Source: Knewton

confused between A and D

also, what would be the approximate level of this problem?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:10 am

by raisethebar » Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:24 am
IMO D is the clear answer.
Top
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:54 am
this is a clear cut question where the author gives 2 reasons for some phenomenon to occur but follows the stance of only one reason. He completely ignores the other reason. Best way to weaken the statement is to show that the second reason is also as likely the cause of the phenomenon.

(A) Many people in Colombia usually use coffee and pepper to cook common dishes, but when these become scarce, people replace these with cocoa. [ This hits the point of destruction by people. Thus it shows alternative cause rather than just attributing the decline to lack of nutrients. Correct!]

(B) There is no indication that the number of cocoa plants anywhere in Colombia declined in the 1960's because of many cocoa plants not receiving adequate water. [ water is just part of a nutrient. there may be other important nutrients too on which the plant depends on. Eliminated!]

(C) In rural areas of Colombia in the 1960's, cocoa plants were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.[ this just tells us that the plants declined in population but does not tell how and why. Eliminated!]

(D) Following the decline in the number of cocoa plants, there was an increase in the number of berry plants, which cocoa plants are known to draw nutrients away from. [ now what happened due to the decrease of cocoa plants is not our concern. This is a typical effect of an effect explanation that we are not concerned about. Eliminated!]

(E) In Colombia, coffee plants and pepper plants grow over a wider geographic area than do cocoa plants. [How does this explain why there is a decline in cocoa plants? Eliminated!]

Hope this helps!
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 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:58 am
also, what would be the approximate level of this problem?
About 550.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:48 pm
In the early 1960's, the number of cocoa plants in Colombia began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline: lack of proper nutrients, possibly due to poor soil, or destruction by people. Of these two, lack of proper nutrients is the more likely, since a concurrent decline in the number of coffee plants and pepper plants is believed to have been caused by a lack of proper nutrients, and cocoa plants require many of the same nutrients as coffee and pepper plants do.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

Cause Effect

1. Lack of proper nutrients ==== > Decline in cocoa plants

2. Destruction by people

As we can see, emphasis is given to Cause No.1 for the stated effect. We can weaken this reasoning if we could cite Cause No.2 (destruction by ppl) for the stated Effect (decline in cocoa plants). Lets see which answer choice does that for us :

(A) Many people in Colombia usually use coffee and pepper to cook common dishes, but when these become scarce, people replace these with cocoa.
Correct : This is what we are looking for. This answer choice undermines the author's reasoning by stating that the decline in cocoa plants is caused by 'PEOPLE' because of increase in cocoa consumption.

(B) There is no indication that the number of cocoa plants anywhere in Colombia declined in the 1960's because of many cocoa plants not receiving adequate water.
Incorrect : 'Water' can be a part of 'nutrients' but we certainly cannot replace 'water' with 'nutrients'. Eliminated.

(C) In rural areas of Colombia in the 1960's, cocoa plants were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.
Incorrect : Even if cocoa plants were absent from many locations, it does not undermine the author's reasoning that Cause No. 1 is the reason behind cocoa plants' decline.

(D) Following the decline in the number of cocoa plants, there was an increase in the number of berry plants, which cocoa plants are known to draw nutrients away from.
Incorrect : What happened 'AFTER' the decline of cocoa plants is irrelevant here.

(E) In Colombia, coffee plants and pepper plants grow over a wider geographic area than do cocoa plants.
Incorrect : This does not undermine the author's reasoning in any way.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:54 pm
rahul.s wrote:In the early 1960's, the number of cocoa plants in Colombia began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline: lack of proper nutrients, possibly due to poor soil, or destruction by people. Of these two, lack of proper nutrients is the more likely, since a concurrent decline in the number of coffee plants and pepper plants is believed to have been caused by a lack of proper nutrients, and cocoa plants require many of the same nutrients as coffee and pepper plants do.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

(A) Many people in Colombia usually use coffee and pepper to cook common dishes, but when these become scarce, people replace these with cocoa.
(B) There is no indication that the number of cocoa plants anywhere in Colombia declined in the 1960's because of many cocoa plants not receiving adequate water.
(C) In rural areas of Colombia in the 1960's, cocoa plants were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.
(D) Following the decline in the number of cocoa plants, there was an increase in the number of berry plants, which cocoa plants are known to draw nutrients away from.
(E) In Colombia, coffee plants and pepper plants grow over a wider geographic area than do cocoa plants.

OA: A
Source: Knewton

confused between A and D

also, what would be the approximate level of this problem?
IN D it means cocoa plants take away the nutrients from berry plants , so if the # of berry plant is increasing then there sholud not be any decline because of lack of nutrients . But we are not sure that the amnt drawn is sufficient for cocoa plants and since the argument already accepts that there is a decline due to lack of nutrients , this option is opposite to the argument and is therfore irrelevant.

we are intrested in to show that the reason for decline in # of cocoa plant is not only the lack of nutrients but also some x , which is A.
A says that the decline is due to the inc in consumption of cocoa plants
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:31 am
Testluv wrote:
also, what would be the approximate level of this problem?
About 550.

Deepak..

Hurray..u r back!!! wow..wow...its so s nice to see ur post on this forum!!!

Welcome back sirJi!!

Deepak, I referred u r name for all the best & toughest CR post to one of our newbie Komal and she felt so elated to read thru ur posts!!
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 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:54 pm
Hi Govardhan,

Thanks for the kind words!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1