GMATPrep CR: Yucaipa tree population

[bangu]

No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

I chose E, however, it is wrong. I though E is an Alternative example on why law is failure, because even if law is there, animal will harm the trees, however E is not the answer. Can you please explain why E is wrong?

[Guest]

No nation in the world has experienced as significant a decline in its Yucaipa tree population as our nation. Yet only our nation imposes a law prohibiting the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics. The purpose of this law in the first place was to help maintain the Yucaipa tree population, at least in this nation. But the law is clearly unnecessary and therefore should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. This nation contains more Yucaipa trees than any other nation.
b. Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics.
c. The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
d. In other countries, labor used to harvest Yucaipa trees for cosmetics is less expensive than comparable labor in this nation.
e. In this nation, some wild animals eat Yucaipa tree bark, thereby contributing to their destruction.

I chose E, however, it is wrong. I though E is an Alternative example on why law is failure, because even if law is there, animal will harm the trees, however E is not the answer. Can you please explain why E is wrong?

My answer will be c.The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation.
I think E is out of scope. since it did not mention anything about "wild animals"
can you confirm the OA. thanks

[Genie]

OA should be "B"

The author wants repeal the ban on use of tree bark in cosmetic products. and we are asked for a "Weaken" reason:

Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics

Dosent this mean that unless the ban stays the tree population will reduce considerably? With the ban, there is no other usage of the bark now.

[Guest]

Original poster,

Please indicate what the OA is.

Thank you.

[esledge]

Bangu, you specifically asked why (E) is wrong. If wild animals are also responsible for the destruction of the trees, the law might be ineffective or only marginally helpful. If anything, this suggest that the law is unnecessary, supporting the conclusion. As you said, "the law is a failure," which is actually the conclusion of this argument.

Also, to the Guest who rejected (E) because it is "out of scope" i.e. it mentions stuff that is not mentioned in the original argument: be careful! There are two ways to weaken an argument: (1) strike down an assumption and (2) provide a countering premise. To do either, a correct choice might bring up new information.

[scrooge]

can anyone let me know the OA????

Between B aand C i strongly feel its C since both of them weaken the argument saying law is necessary !!!!


Now when we talk about weakenin !!!what degree of weakening is important here !!!

B says yucaipa oil is not used in any other products than cosmetics !!! hence in a way says banning the use can result in reduced tree cutting

C says there is an unabated demand of cosmetics with yucaipa oil !!!!hence banning suych cosmetics will prove good!!! compared to other nations is mentioned and also in argument other nations is discussed!!hence its better weakener than B

IMO B

whats the OA ? break the suspense now !!!! :shock:

[JonathanSchneider]

Genie, you're close, but be careful that you justify every word. We are told only that the tree bark oil has only one use. However, we do not know whether there are other uses for other aspects of the tree: the wood itself, for example.

I go with C. Here's why: we are told that the demand for this product will continue UNABATED - meaning that there is a demand.

The argument is relatively weak to begin with. We are told that the law is unnecessary, based only on the evidence that 1) the law is meant to help protect the trees, and 2) the trees are still being lost. The arguer assumes that this means that the law has no effect. It's possible, though, that the trees would be lost even MORE if not for the law. We merely need to show that the law does have some effect. C does this by showing that there is a demand for the trees - thus, the law that prevents this type of use ought to help protect them - thus weakening the argument.

[stock.mojo11]

Sorry, I dissent (I am no Ron, but I will on this) with most of you on the answer choice C and the answer is suspect at best for 2 reasons.

Lets say C is true and demand across world falls down and the demand is unabated in this country, the law is clearly unnecessary. The nation in Q can import as much as it wants. I hope thats not too much infering.

B T W this is not GMATprep. Its petersons.

F Y I

http://books.google.com/books?id=tFtaWK ... t&resnum=3

[ctrajaram]

Agree with C and here's why.

Conclusions: Law must be repealed since it is not necessary.

Need to weaken this conclusion

B
Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics

We are given info that the tree population is declining in the nation and the law prohibits the use of Yucaipa tree-bark oil in cosmetics meaning that it is being used in the nation in the production of cosmetics.
Ok agree but it still doesnt address why the law is needed since we dont know anything about the demand of cosmetics in the nation or if the nation uses cosmetics at all. The lawmakers may have been out of their minds when they passed the law we dont know i.e dont have SUFF info to say anything. Therefore this choice does not weaken the conclusion.


C
The demand for cosmetics containing Yucaipa tree-bark oil is expected to decline in the future in other nations while continuing unabated in this nation

Therefore more trees woulf be used to meet the cosmetic demands, so we clearly need this law. This would weaken the argument that proposes that law is unnecessary and therefore needs to be repealed.


Just my 2 cent for what it's worth :-)

[RonPurewal]

i go with (c).

remember, when we're looking at a problem like this one, the point is to STAY AS CLOSE TO THE CONCLUSION AS POSSIBLE.

the conclusion is that THE LAW SHOULD BE REPEALED.

therefore, if we wish to weaken this conclusion, we should pick a statement that shows SUPPORT for the law.

--

(c)

this choice gives a good reason to KEEP the law in existence: namely, the demand for products containing yucaipa bark is not going to go down. in other words, this statement places a MINIMUM on the demand for yucaipa bark, and so strengthens the need for a law controlling the yucaipa supply.

--

(b)

if this choice has any effect on the law, it actually works against the law, because it places a MAXIMUM on the demand for yucaipa bark.
therefore, we definitely don't want this choice.

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

Ron,

I agree that in weaken the conclusion question, we should stay as close to conclusion as possible, but don't you think E also has a chance.

The argument says, Law could not prevent people from using the tree and hence the population declined , and therefore we should repeal it.

If we show that there is an alternative reason for the population decline, such as animals eat the tree, then there is nothing much law can do about it. and hence the argument to repeal law is weakened.

Please let me know if my reasoning is flawed, or if this approach should not be used in this kind of question ( Also if this approach should not be used in this question, please let me know, how to select the questions, on which this approach of alternative reasoning can be applied ?)

i go with (c).

remember, when we're looking at a problem like this one, the point is to STAY AS CLOSE TO THE CONCLUSION AS POSSIBLE.

the conclusion is that THE LAW SHOULD BE REPEALED.

therefore, if we wish to weaken this conclusion, we should pick a statement that shows SUPPORT for the law.

--

(c)

this choice gives a good reason to KEEP the law in existence: namely, the demand for products containing yucaipa bark is not going to go down. in other words, this statement places a MINIMUM on the demand for yucaipa bark, and so strengthens the need for a law controlling the yucaipa supply.

--

(b)

if this choice has any effect on the law, it actually works against the law, because it places a MAXIMUM on the demand for yucaipa bark.
therefore, we definitely don't want this choice.

[RonPurewal]

If we show that there is an alternative reason for the population decline, such as animals eat the tree, then there is nothing much law can do about it. and hence the argument to repeal law is weakened.

hmm.

it seems that you're making one of the following two mistakes:
(1) you forget that you're supposed to WEAKEN the passage;
(2) you don't understand what "repeal" means.

to repeal a law is to get rid of it - to cancel it from the books.

the ARGUMENT is that the law should be done away with.

to WEAKEN this argument, you should show that the law serves a useful purpose.

you are arguing here that "the law doesn't do much". if that's the case, then you are doing precisely the opposite of what you must do to weaken the argument.

make sure you keep these sorts of things straight! it can be difficult at times; you may want to jot down notes while you're doing the problem.

[S.agar]

Hi Ron,

As you stated here that we should show that the law serves a useful purpose, so if we consider statement B 'Yucaipa tree-bark oil is not used for any consumer goods other than cosmetics', cant we say that now when Yucaipa tree-bark oil is only used for cosmetics, by putting a law, we can completely remove its uses and can save the trees.

In this case, we are showing that the law is necessary for protection of tree.

Please help me with this.

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Simplifying the statements will help.

• Our country already prohibits the use of Y-bark in cosmetics.

• Still, Y-trees are disappearing faster in our country.

Think about these statements together. If both of them are true, then one of the following must be true:
• The law isn't doing much;
• The population is going down for some other reason, against which the law doesn't protect.

Choice B points strongly to "The law isn't doing much". If Y-bark isn't used for any products other than cosmetics-- a use that's already illegal here--then the law doesn't seem to be doing much of anything.

[RonPurewal]

In any case, as mentioned above, this is a bad question from a sketchy source. As such, it's not worth your time. Accordingly, the thread is now locked.