Tiger Hunting

IMO E.

Why A is wrong?

A is a trap answer. Argument (cleverly) states that 'IF these countries enforce, then...'.

crackgmat007 wrote:IMO E.

Why A is wrong?

A is a trap answer. Argument (cleverly) states that 'IF these countries enforce, then...'.

Excellent reasoning, crackgmat007!

If the legislation does not come to pass, then the wild tigers' death is certain.

That does not mean that if the legislation comes to pass, the tigers' survival is guaranteed. Instead, it only means that their extinction is no longer guaranteed.

Testluv wrote:[Excellent reasoning, crackgmat007!

If the legislation does not come to pass, then the wild tigers' death is certain.

That does not mean that if the legislation comes to pass, the tigers' survival is guaranteed. Instead, it only means that their extinction is no longer guaranteed.

yeah E is the answer.

@Testluv,so for weakening type of questions,the kind of strategy to be used is something like: Try to negate the assumption on which the conclusion relies.So that we are weakening the conclusion and thereby the argument on the whole.


Here in this argument,the legislators "assumes" that "tiger hunting " is the "only" reason for its extinction.So if we can "DISPROVE" that there are someother reason that causes its extinction,we are weakening the conclusion & the argument.

Plz let me am I right in my understanding .

gmatmachoman wrote:

Testluv wrote:[Excellent reasoning, crackgmat007!

If the legislation does not come to pass, then the wild tigers' death is certain.

That does not mean that if the legislation comes to pass, the tigers' survival is guaranteed. Instead, it only means that their extinction is no longer guaranteed.

yeah E is the answer.

@Testluv,so for weakening type of questions,the kind of strategy to be used is something like: Try to negate the assumption on which the conclusion relies.So that we are weakening the conclusion and thereby the argument on the whole.


Here in this argument,the legislators "assumes" that "tiger hunting " is the "only" reason for its extinction.So if we can "DISPROVE" that there are someother reason that causes its extinction,we are weakening the conclusion & the argument.

Plz let me am I right in my understanding .

Hi gmatmachman,

Yes, it sounds like you got it.

For assumption questions, figure out the assumption, and scan for a match. You can verify whether you`ve identified the assumption correctly by using the denial test. You can also deny a choice.

For weaken questions, figure out the assumption, and find a choice that attacks that assumption. Also know that weakeners make the conclusion less likely to be true (because they attack the assumption).

For strengthen questions, figure out the assumption, and find a choice that backs that assumption up. Strengtheners make the conclusion more likely to be true (because they back that assumption up).

In strengthen and weaken questions, the question stem will always tell you to treat the answer choices as facts (which of the following, if true). Basically, you are provided with a bunch of new facts. You have to find the one that will affect the likelihood of the conclusion being true. The right fact (right answer) will affect the likelihood of the conclusion being true, most often by operating on the assumption. That's why it is a great idea to figure out the assumption in strengthen/weaken questions.

But note that this is not a weaken question. This is actually a flaw question. Mixing up the two is a common error.

Weaken questions ask you to select a fact that will make the conclusion less likely to be true.

Flaw questions are asking you for a reasoning error already made by the author.

I discuss it here: https://www.beatthegmat.com/tongue-scrabbers-t47042.html

wow,that was a candid explanation Testluv,

Thx for making my "cloud of cobweb doubts" clear!!

U r wrds are more precise and simpler than Powerscore CR Bible..I mean that!!

Many Thx for ur time &energies !!

gmatmachoman wrote:wow,that was a candid explanation Testluv,

Thx for making my "cloud of cobweb doubts" clear!!

U r wrds are more precise and simpler than Powerscore CR Bible..I mean that!!

Many Thx for ur time &energies !!

It's my pleasure. My pathological love for standardized tests has met with a proper forum!

TESTLUV WROTE:

If the legislation does not come to pass, then the wild tigers' death is certain.

That does not mean that if the legislation comes to pass, the tigers' survival is guaranteed. Instead, it only means that their extinction is no longer guaranteed.

MY QUESTION:

IF THE ISSUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS "EXTINCTION" AND YOU SAY THAT PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATURE MEANS THAT THEIR EXTINCTION IS NO LONGER GUARANTEED, HOW IS THEIR SURVIVAL IS RELATED TO EXTINCTION? YES, THEY MIGHT BE IN DANGE OF LOSS OF LIFE FOR ANY OTHER REASON, BUT HOW IS THIS SHOWS A FLAW THAT IF THE LAW PASSES THEIR EXTINCTION IS STILL POSSIBLE ?

THANKS

heshamelaziry wrote:TESTLUV WROTE:

If the legislation does not come to pass, then the wild tigers' death is certain.

That does not mean that if the legislation comes to pass, the tigers' survival is guaranteed. Instead, it only means that their extinction is no longer guaranteed.

MY QUESTION:

IF THE ISSUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS "EXTINCTION" AND YOU SAY THAT PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATURE MEANS THAT THEIR EXTINCTION IS NO LONGER GUARANTEED, HOW IS THEIR SURVIVAL IS RELATED TO EXTINCTION? YES, THEY MIGHT BE IN DANGE OF LOSS OF LIFE FOR ANY OTHER REASON, BUT HOW IS THIS SHOWS A FLAW THAT IF THE LAW PASSES THEIR EXTINCTION IS STILL POSSIBLE ?

THANKS

Hi Hesham,

This is a flaw question. You might get one on the GMAT, but you are very unlikely to get two. These questions ask for the author`s reasoning mistake.

The relationship between flaw and assumption is as follows. Whenever the author makes an assumption (which is any time you are in an assumption, strengthen, weaken, or flaw question), he is making that assumption because of a flaw in his reasoning. So flaw questions are asking you for the reasoning error, instead of the assumption directly.

This argument commits the classic error of confusing necessity and sufficiency.

The author`s first sentence is evidence that establishes that if hunting does not decrease, the tiger will become extinct in the wild. That means if steps are not taken to prevent the hunting, there will no longer be ANY tigers in the wild. This is evidence, and we "give" the author his evidence; it is true information.

In the second sentence, we learn that there is legislation on the table, which, if passed, would ban tiger-hunting. Because tiger-hunting will definitely kill off all of the wild tigers, legislation (or some other thing) is necessary for the tiger`s survival in the wild. This does not mean that the legislation will guarantee (ie, is sufficient for) the tiger`s survival.

Let`s think of an analogy. Gas is needed for driving a car. But having gas in the car`s tank does not guarantee that you will be able to drive the car because there are other things you need to drive a car: transmission, steering wheel, etc. In other words, gas is necessary but not sufficient for driving a car.

The author`s evidence establishes that legislation (or some other thing) is necessary (needed) for the tiger`s survival in the wild. But the legislation does not necessarily guarantee the tiger`s survival because there may be other needed things: a stiff penalty for breaching the tiger-hunting ban, resources to implement the ban, etc.

Without the legislation aimed at stopping tiger-hunting (or something else that stops tiger-hunting), the wild tiger are doomed.

The passing of the legislation gives the tiger a chance of surviving (ie, there extinction is no longer guaranteed) but does not guarantee that they will survive.

In other wors, the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grouds that it "takes the removal of an impediment to a tiger's survival as a guarantee of their survival." (choice E)

The "impediment" to the tiger's survival was the tiger-hunting. The legislation will "remove" this impediment. This does not mean that the legislation will ensure the tiger's survival because there may be other "impediments" to the survival of the tigers.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU PUT.

I CAN'T CLEARLY SEE WHY A IS NOT CORRECT. THE STEM SAYS "IF" MEANS MAYBE YES OR MAYBE NO. THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN DISREGARD A ON THE TEST IS TO THINK: "A IS TOO OBVIOUS TO BE THE CORRECT ANSWER; THE TEST MAKERS DON'T LIKE TO GIVE AWAY CORRECT ANSWERS THAT ARE OBVIOUS". THIS IS A GAMBLE BUT MAYBE THE ONLY WAY FOR SOME PEOPLE.

I AM BEYOND EXHAUSTION BECAUSE OF THE GMAT. I REALLY DON'T THINK ACQUIRING A MASTER'S DEGREE IS AS CHALLENGING.

heshamelaziry wrote:I REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU PUT.

I CAN'T CLEARLY SEE WHY A IS NOT CORRECT. THE STEM SAYS "IF" MEANS MAYBE YES OR MAYBE NO. THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN DISREGARD A ON THE TEST IS TO THINK: "A IS TOO OBVIOUS TO BE THE CORRECT ANSWER; THE TEST MAKERS DON'T LIKE TO GIVE AWAY CORRECT ANSWERS THAT ARE OBVIOUS". THIS IS A GAMBLE BUT MAYBE THE ONLY WAY FOR SOME PEOPLE.

I AM BEYOND EXHAUSTION BECAUSE OF THE GMAT. I REALLY DON'T THINK ACQUIRING A MASTER'S DEGREE IS AS CHALLENGING.

Choice A is wrong because the author does not assume that the ban would definitely be enforceable. He concluded: "Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce the legislation..."

"I AM BEYOND EXHAUSTION BECAUSE OF THE GMAT. I REALLY DON'T THINK ACQUIRING A MASTER'S DEGREE IS AS CHALLENGING."

Make sure you spend a lot of time reviewing, not just doing bunches of questions. You don't want to practice blindly. Think about your reasoning process, and try your best to figure out why wrong answers you pick are wrong and why the right answer is right. Try to think about how you could avoid that mistake in the future. Review your right answers too, and ask yourself how you could have answered them more quickly.

I am leaning more towards A, but I'm not sure about it.

I am pretty sure that the right Answer is E