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

Redeem

cultivated herb in soil with high concentrations of metals

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:58 pm
Thanked: 12 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:530

cultivated herb in soil with high concentrations of metals

by vishalwin » Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:25 am
A certain cultivated herb is one of a group of closely related plants that thrive in
soil with high concentrations of metals that are toxic to most other plants.
Agronomists studying the growth of this herb have discovered that it produces
large amounts of histidine, an amino acid that, in test-tube solutions, renders these
metals chemically inert. Hence, the herb's high histidine production must be the
key feature that allows it to grow in metal-rich soils.
In evaluating the argument, it would be most important to determine which of the
following?
(A) Whether the herb can thrive in soil that does not have high
concentrations of the toxic metals
(B) Whether others of the closely related group of plants also produce
histidine in large quantities
(C) Whether the herb's high level of histidine production is associated with
an unusually low level of production of some other amino acid
(D) Whether growing the herb in soil with high concentrations of the metals
will, over time, reduce their concentrations in the soil
(E) Whether the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as
the plant approaches maturity
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:02 am
vishalwin wrote:A certain cultivated herb is one of a group of closely related plants that thrive in
soil with high concentrations of metals that are toxic to most other plants.
Agronomists studying the growth of this herb have discovered that it produces
large amounts of histidine, an amino acid that, in test-tube solutions, renders these
metals chemically inert. Hence, the herb's high histidine production must be the
key feature that allows it to grow in metal-rich soils.
In evaluating the argument, it would be most important to determine which of the
following?

(A) Whether the herb can thrive in soil that does not have high
concentrations of the toxic metals
(B) Whether others of the closely related group of plants also produce
histidine in large quantities
(C) Whether the herb's high level of histidine production is associated with
an unusually low level of production of some other amino acid
(D) Whether growing the herb in soil with high concentrations of the metals
will, over time, reduce their concentrations in the soil
(E) Whether the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as
the plant approaches maturity
This is a CAUSAL argument.
In a causal argument, A and B are observed together, and the CR concludes that A CAUSES B.

Premise = A and B are observed together:
A cultivated herb produces histidine and is able to grow in metal-rich soils.
Conclusion = A causes B:
Histidine CAUSES the herb to be able to grow in metal-rich soils.

The correct answer choice must help us determine whether this conclusion is valid.
Rephrase the answer choices as STATEMENTS.
Rephrased as a statement, the correct answer choice will either STRENGTHEN or WEAKEN the link between HISTIDINE and THE ABILITY TO GROW I METAL-RICH SOILS.
B, rephrased as a statement:
Others of the closely related group of plants also produce histidine in large quantities.
Here, other plants in the closely related group THAT THRIVE IN SOIL WITH HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS also produce HISTIDINE, STRENGTHENING the conclusion that histidine CAUSES a plant to be able to grow in metal-rich soils.

The correct answer is B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:34 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Crystal W » Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:48 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
vishalwin wrote:A certain cultivated herb is one of a group of closely related plants that thrive in
soil with high concentrations of metals that are toxic to most other plants.
Agronomists studying the growth of this herb have discovered that it produces
large amounts of histidine, an amino acid that, in test-tube solutions, renders these
metals chemically inert. Hence, the herb's high histidine production must be the
key feature that allows it to grow in metal-rich soils.
In evaluating the argument, it would be most important to determine which of the
following?

(A) Whether the herb can thrive in soil that does not have high
concentrations of the toxic metals
(B) Whether others of the closely related group of plants also produce
histidine in large quantities
(C) Whether the herb's high level of histidine production is associated with
an unusually low level of production of some other amino acid
(D) Whether growing the herb in soil with high concentrations of the metals
will, over time, reduce their concentrations in the soil
(E) Whether the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as
the plant approaches maturity
This is a CAUSAL argument.
In a causal argument, A and B are observed together, and the CR concludes that A CAUSES B.

Premise = A and B are observed together:
A cultivated herb produces histidine and is able to grow in metal-rich soils.
Conclusion = A causes B:
Histidine CAUSES the herb to be able to grow in metal-rich soils.

The correct answer choice must help us determine whether this conclusion is valid.
Rephrase the answer choices as STATEMENTS.
Rephrased as a statement, the correct answer choice will either STRENGTHEN or WEAKEN the link between HISTIDINE and THE ABILITY TO GROW I METAL-RICH SOILS.
B, rephrased as a statement:
Others of the closely related group of plants also produce histidine in large quantities.
Here, other plants in the closely related group THAT THRIVE IN SOIL WITH HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS also produce HISTIDINE, STRENGTHENING the conclusion that histidine CAUSES a plant to be able to grow in metal-rich soils.

The correct answer is B.
Thank you for your explanantion. Can you explain other choices, especially D?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:33 am
Crystal W wrote: Thank you for your explanantion. Can you explain other choices, especially D?
The other answer choices, rephrased as statements:

A: The herb can thrive in soil that does not have high concentrations of the toxic metals.
The ability to thrive in NON-METAL soils does not strengthen or weaken the conclusion that histidine enables the herb to thrive in METAL-RICH soils.
Eliminate A.

C: The herb's high level of histidine production is associated with an unusually low level of production of some other amino acid.
The association discussed here does not strengthen or weaken the conclusion that histidine enables the herb to thrive in metal-rich soils.
Eliminate C.

D: Growing the herb in soil with high concentrations of the metals will, over time, reduce their concentrations in the soil.
A subsequent decrease in metal-concentration does does not strengthen or weaken the conclusion that histidine enables the herb to thrive in METAL-RICH soils -- when the concentration of metal is still HIGH.
Eliminate D.

E: The concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as the plant approaches maturity.
This option seems to contradict the premise that growth of the herb produces LARGE AMOUNTS OF HISTIDINE.
A premise is a FACT: it cannot be contradicted.
Eliminate E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon May 02, 2016 10:32 am
Hi Verbal Experts,
Got a quick question on this CAUSAL ARGUMENT.

In GMAT, when we have A causes B -- to STRENGTHEN this CAUSAL relation we need to find the option that says any of the followings:

1. There is NO OTHER REASON for B.

2. REVERSE CAUSATION doesn't hold true.

Am I correct ?

P.S: If yes, then which of the above satisfies here ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:33 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts,
Got a quick question on this CAUSAL ARGUMENT.

In GMAT, when we have A causes B -- to STRENGTHEN this CAUSAL relation we need to find the option that says any of the followings:

1. There is NO OTHER REASON for B.

2. REVERSE CAUSATION doesn't hold true.

Am I correct ?

P.S: If yes, then which of the above satisfies here ?
That's a reasonable way of thinking about causality arguments. In this case, the correct answer would address explanation 1. If the related species did not produce much histidine, and these plants were still surviving, then there must be another reason, aside from histidine production, that would have allowed them to do so.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:16 am
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts,
Got a quick question on this CAUSAL ARGUMENT.

In GMAT, when we have A causes B -- to STRENGTHEN this CAUSAL relation we need to find the option that says any of the followings:

1. There is NO OTHER REASON for B.

2. REVERSE CAUSATION doesn't hold true.

Am I correct ?

P.S: If yes, then which of the above satisfies here ?
That's a reasonable way of thinking about causality arguments. In this case, the correct answer would address explanation 1. If the related species did not produce much histidine, and these plants were still surviving, then there must be another reason, aside from histidine production, that would have allowed them to do so.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the clarification.

So, for a CAUSAL CR on GMAT, when we have A causes B -- to STRENGTHEN this CAUSAL relation we need to find the option that says any of the followings (in addition to the above mentioned TWO ways to STRENGTHEN):

3. There is NO OTHER REASON that causes BOTH A & B.

4. Another EVIDENCE that shows A ACTUALLY causes B.

5. If NOT A then NOT B.

ALL these FIVE are possible ways to STRENGTHEN the CAUSAL relation on GMAT CR, I guess. Am I correct ?

Anything else that we should consider in this aspect ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:58 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts,
Got a quick question on this CAUSAL ARGUMENT.

In GMAT, when we have A causes B -- to STRENGTHEN this CAUSAL relation we need to find the option that says any of the followings:

1. There is NO OTHER REASON for B.

2. REVERSE CAUSATION doesn't hold true.

Am I correct ?

P.S: If yes, then which of the above satisfies here ?
That's a reasonable way of thinking about causality arguments. In this case, the correct answer would address explanation 1. If the related species did not produce much histidine, and these plants were still surviving, then there must be another reason, aside from histidine production, that would have allowed them to do so.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the clarification.

So, for a CAUSAL CR on GMAT, when we have A causes B -- to STRENGTHEN this CAUSAL relation we need to find the option that says any of the followings (in addition to the above mentioned TWO ways to STRENGTHEN):

3. There is NO OTHER REASON that causes BOTH A & B.

4. Another EVIDENCE that shows A ACTUALLY causes B.

5. If NOT A then NOT B.

ALL these FIVE are possible ways to STRENGTHEN the CAUSAL relation on GMAT CR, I guess. Am I correct ?

Anything else that we should consider in this aspect ?
You can think of 3 and 4 as being part of 1 and 2. (If there's nothing else that causes A and B, then clearly there's nothing else that causes A. And the evidence that A actually causes B is typically conveyed by stipulating that either there's no alternative cause or that it's not the case that B causes A.)

Be careful about 5. If condition A leads to scenario B, it's not necessarily true that the absence of A entails the avoidance of B. Think of a simple case. If I drive 120 mph then I will get into an accident, does not mean that if I don't drive 120 mph that I will not get into an accident.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:12 pm
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:You can think of 3 and 4 as being part of 1 and 2. (If there's nothing else that causes A and B, then clearly there's nothing else that causes A. And the evidence that A actually causes B is typically conveyed by stipulating that either there's no alternative cause or that it's not the case that B causes A.)
Yes, that seems true...
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:Be careful about 5. If condition A leads to scenario B, it's not necessarily true that the absence of A entails the avoidance of B. Think of a simple case. If I drive 120 mph then I will get into an accident, does not mean that if I don't drive 120 mph that I will not get into an accident.
I meant that for STRENGTHEN CAUSAL CR on GMAT, this rule #5 will hold true, BUT NOT for ASSUMPTION CAUSAL CR (in which MUST BE TRUE aspect comes into play). Is this wrong to consider ?

And anything else that we should consider in this (STRENGTHENING) CAUSAL CR aspect on GMAT ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:22 pm
I meant that for STRENGTHEN CAUSAL CR on GMAT, this rule #5 will hold true, BUT NOT for ASSUMPTION CAUSAL CR (in which MUST BE TRUE aspect comes into play). Is this wrong to consider ?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here - can you elaborate? (But you're right that the correct answer must be logically true in an assumption question, whereas in a strengthen question, the correct answer will make the conclusion more likely if it's true.)
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:50 pm
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:(But you're right that the correct answer must be logically true in an assumption question, whereas in a strengthen question, the correct answer will make the conclusion more likely if it's true.)
Thanks for confirming this...
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're asking here - can you elaborate?
Sure.
What I meant is: for STRENGTHEN CR on GMAT, in which we observe the CAUSAL ARGUMENT (such as A causes B), one way to STRENGTHEN the CONCLUSION of that CR could be If NOT A then NOT B. Isn't it ?

However, If NOT A then NOT B can't be the (logic of an) OA in an ASSUMPTION CAUSAL CR because it doesn't satisfy the MUST BE TRUE aspect of ASSUMPTION CR.

Is this understanding NOT correct ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Mon Aug 15, 2016 5:08 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:(But you're right that the correct answer must be logically true in an assumption question, whereas in a strengthen question, the correct answer will make the conclusion more likely if it's true.)
Thanks for confirming this...
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're asking here - can you elaborate?
Sure.
What I meant is: for STRENGTHEN CR on GMAT, in which we observe the CAUSAL ARGUMENT (such as A causes B), one way to STRENGTHEN the CONCLUSION of that CR could be If NOT A then NOT B. Isn't it ?

However, If NOT A then NOT B can't be the (logic of an) OA in an ASSUMPTION CAUSAL CR because it doesn't satisfy the MUST BE TRUE aspect of ASSUMPTION CR.

Is this understanding NOT correct ?
Well, the latter analysis is definitely true - if the argument is A --> B, one cannot assume that NOT A ---> NOT B. For example, if my argument was If a test-taker studies for 20 hours, she will do well on the exam, we definitely cannot say If a test-taker does not study for 20 hours, she will not do well on the test, and we also cannot say that the latter strengthens the former. This is a classic logical flaw.

I hesitate to make any sweeping generalizations, but for such reasoning to work, it would have to be a very carefully worded question. If the argument had been Studying for 20+ hours is the only way to do well on the test, then it would be true that those who don't study for at least 20 hours will not do well on the test.

So you want to be hyper-aware of language details in CR.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:46 am
Option E is incorrect because:

1. If we consider that "the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as the plant approaches maturity", then it seems to contradict the PREMISE in the argument that says that this herb produces large amounts of histidine as it grows.

Moreover, even if histidine declines as the plant approaches maturity, the also it desn't substantiate or shed light that whether histidine production must be the key feature.

Am I correct ?

2. Now if we consider that "the concentration of histidine in the growing herb DOESN'T decline as the plant approaches maturity", then it doesn't necessarily shed light that whether histidine production must be the key feature. Right ?

@Dave - Could you please confirm whether my above reasons to eliminate E are correct ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:17 am
Option E is incorrect because:

1. If we consider that "the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as the plant approaches maturity", then it seems to contradict the PREMISE in the argument that says that this herb produces large amounts of histidine as it grows.

Moreover, even if histidine declines as the plant approaches maturity, the also it desn't substantiate or shed light that whether histidine production must be the key feature.

Am I correct ?
Well, just because histidine production declined, doesn't necessarily mean that the plant isn't still producing large amounts of it. (If you make $2 billion in year one and $1.9 billion in year two, your profits have declined, but they're still pretty healthy.)

But the second point is 100% correct.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:49 am
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Well, just because histidine production declined, doesn't necessarily mean that the plant isn't still producing large amounts of it. (If you make $2 billion in year one and $1.9 billion in year two, your profits have declined, but they're still pretty healthy.)

But the second point is 100% correct.
Hi David Previous poster has written this -
If we consider that "the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as the plant approaches maturity", then it seems to contradict the PREMISE in the argument that says that this herb produces large amounts of histidine as it grows
However Premise has altogether a different statement -

Agronomists studying the growth of this herb have discovered that it produces large amounts of histidine, an amino acid that, in test - tube solutions, renders these metals chemically inert.

Let us simplify what above is saying =
Agronomist while studying the growth of the herb discovered that it produces large amount of histidine.

Isn't it that this quiet different from what previous poster has said.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply