Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.The countries in which the tigers' habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting.Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival
Tiger hunting
This topic has expert replies
IMO E
Argument says if legislation is enforced, survival will be ensured. And we are asked to find the flaw in the reasoning.
Extinction could be caused by many factors and one of them is hunting. E correctly identifies the flaw: takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival.
Just adding:
Now, how do we make this argument better?
It would have been better if it said "if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the chances of survival of tigers will improve.
HTH
Argument says if legislation is enforced, survival will be ensured. And we are asked to find the flaw in the reasoning.
Extinction could be caused by many factors and one of them is hunting. E correctly identifies the flaw: takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival.
Just adding:
Now, how do we make this argument better?
It would have been better if it said "if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the chances of survival of tigers will improve.
HTH
"Choose to chance the rapids and dance the tides"
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:580
tarina wrote:Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.The countries in which the tigers' habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting.Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
A. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
B. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
C. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
D. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
E. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers' survival as a guarantee of their survival
IMO A
OA Eiamseer wrote:IMO E
Just adding:
Now, how do we make this argument better?
It would have been better if it said "if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the chances of survival of tigers will improve.
HTH
But as you just added, the successful enforcement can improve the chance. So what about option A?
The argument is "If these countries can successfully enforce this legislation,...."tarina wrote:OA Eiamseer wrote:IMO E
Just adding:
Now, how do we make this argument better?
It would have been better if it said "if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the chances of survival of tigers will improve.
HTH
But as you just added, the successful enforcement can improve the chance. So what about option A?
"If X happens Y will happen for sure" In this argument, no one is assuming that X could be successfully made to occur. So, that is not a flaw.
HTH
"Choose to chance the rapids and dance the tides"
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- bubbliiiiiiii
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 49 times
- Followed by:12 members
- GMAT Score:700
Option A tries to question the enforcement of the proposed legislation whereas its already given in the argument that 'countries can successfully enforce this legislation'.jainrahul1985 wrote:Can someone please explain why A is wrong ?
Thus not A.
Hope it helps.
Regards,
Pranay
Pranay
-
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 539 times
- Followed by:164 members
- GMAT Score:800
The author is very careful in NOT assuming that a ban will be successful because he concludes "IF these countries can successfully enforce this legislation..."jainrahul1985 wrote:Can someone please explain why A is wrong ?
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
- HSPA
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
- Thanked: 47 times
- Followed by:13 members
- GMAT Score:640
Wow... weird options but they are not tough
Opinion: Hunting is not the only reason for the decrease in its number.
Tigers are having low birht rate and no illness
Forest area is decreasing.
Legislation to pass the rule will take long time.
A) Argument has no proof that there will be failure in enforcing the legislation.
B) Out of scope
C) huneters success rate is out of scope
D) past efforts are not in consideration
E) Present means of survival is sufficient for their long term survival and considers that hunting is the only impedement.
I agree with OA E
Opinion: Hunting is not the only reason for the decrease in its number.
Tigers are having low birht rate and no illness
Forest area is decreasing.
Legislation to pass the rule will take long time.
A) Argument has no proof that there will be failure in enforcing the legislation.
B) Out of scope
C) huneters success rate is out of scope
D) past efforts are not in consideration
E) Present means of survival is sufficient for their long term survival and considers that hunting is the only impedement.
I agree with OA E
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
hi, instrutors.
i wonder that, in the background "Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild". the author has already connected the survival of tiger with the hunting. so if the hunting is decreased ,then the tiger will not soon extinct. But doesn't that conflict with the OA E?
thanks~
i wonder that, in the background "Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild". the author has already connected the survival of tiger with the hunting. so if the hunting is decreased ,then the tiger will not soon extinct. But doesn't that conflict with the OA E?
thanks~