CR - GMAT prep

[RonPurewal]

that's another workable explanation.

[bruno.shinjo]

Can you please clarify one thing in answer (a)?

a. Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park.

If we apply the negation technique, and verify that there is a very, very big discrepancy between collared female and uncollared females (let's say 100 collared and only 1 uncollared), then it is flawed to assume that the uncollared female is younger or older than the others (because the sample of uncollered is so small). Wouldn't the answer (a) be relevant to know? As in many other CR problems, it is necessary to equate the things being compared, don't you think so?

[RonPurewal]

Can you please clarify one thing in answer (a)?

a. Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park.

If we apply the negation technique, and verify that there is a very, very big discrepancy

As soon as you get here, this reasoning becomes irrelevant. You can't make up stuff that the words don't actually say.

[JaiD778]

I am sorry I still dont get it..

I understood that any part of the argument can be attacked in a suspect, not just the conclusion.

But, irrespective of whether rhino is 'tranked' on other ocassions, "Female rhinoceroses that have been frequently recollared have significant lower fertility rate than uncollared females".

It is also true that "When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on. Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart"

So I believe that the option C does not disrupt any part..

Please Throw light on what I am missing here..

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jai

[RonPurewal]

if the rhinos are tranquilized frequently enough for other reasons, then the tranquilizer no longer correlates to the radio collars.
in that case, if you notice something unusual going on in the animals who wear radio collars, that thing can no longer be blamed on the tranquilizers--instead, it has to be blamed on the radio collars themselves.

[SudiptaB23]

But even the flaw does not help dispute the conclusion- Probably, therefore, some subtances in the tranquilizer inhibit fertility-in that even if rhinos have been tranquillized lot of times other than re-collaring, the assertion that some subtances in the tranquilizer inhibit fertility remains intact and sound.

no.

in the FACTS in the passage, fertility is ONLY connected to re-collaring. NONE of the facts connect fertility DIRECTLY to the tranquilizer dart IN ANY WAY AT ALL.

therefore, in order to relate fertility to the tranquilizer darts, you must assume that there is a necessary connection between re-collaring and the tranquilizer dart.

if you break the connection between tranquilizers and collaring, then collars have NO connection left to fertility AT ALL.

hope that helps.

Is the 2nd last sentence correct ?

"if you break the connection between tranquilizers and collaring, then collars have NO connection left to fertility AT ALL."

I think it will be: if you break the connection between tranquilizers and collaring, then tranquilizers have NO connection left to fertility AT ALL.

The changes are highlighted in bold blue.

Please confirm.

Regards,
SB

[thanghnvn]

Ron, I think this is really hard problem.
for us, non native, our english proficiency affect our ability to read and realize the the conclusion in the argument. so, enlish count here

but for this problem, even if I do it again, I find it hard to go to choice C because of logic problem not english problem.

so, this question is hard because we can not figure out an assumption or can not attack/challenge the problem before we go to answer choices. or, our challenger to the problem is different from the idea in the answer choice C. if out attack on problem or our criticization of the problem match the idea in the answer choice , the problem is more easy.

I think it is hard. and we should note your advice: eliminate the wrong answer choices which is out of scope and leave the remaining choice.

do you think this is V 40 level question. I looking V 30 only

[kedieez967]

Ron, could you please confirm my explanation for C.

if park rangers use tranquilizer dart to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons much more frequently than for attaching radio collars, then tranquilizer dart makes little difference between collared rhinoceroses and uncollared rhinoceroses, so there must be some other reasons contributing to distinction of the fertility rate between collared rhinoceroses and uncollared rhinoceroses.

if park rangers use tranquilizer dart to immobilize rhinoceroses for attaching radio collars much more frequently than for reasons, then tranquilizer dart contribute to the difference of fertility rate between collared rhinoceroses and uncollared rhinoceroses.

am i right?

Thank you very much!

Best wishes!

[RonPurewal]

if park rangers use tranquilizer dart to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons much more frequently than for attaching radio collars, then tranquilizer dart makes little difference between collared rhinoceroses and uncollared rhinoceroses, so there must be some other reasons contributing to distinction of the fertility rate between collared rhinoceroses and uncollared rhinoceroses.

understanding this sentence ^^ felt like a 'challenge problem' for me.
(:
(here's a piece of unsolicited advice: if an entire paragraph consists of 1 sentence... you need to break up that sentence.)

this reasoning is accurate IF
• the blue stuff actually means 'for OTHER reasons' (= for reasons that DO NOT involve putting a collar on the animal),
• the pink stuff actually means 'doesn't correctly distinguish'.
(this is not what 'make a difference' means. 'make a difference' means 'to cause a significant change in some situation'—e.g., John owes the bank over $40,000, so giving him $100 won't really make a difference.
'make a difference' is a VERY VERY common phrase, so this was the hardest part to understand.)

if you meant both of those things, then, yes.

[RonPurewal]

if park rangers use tranquilizer dart to immobilize rhinoceroses for attaching radio collars much more frequently than for reasons, then tranquilizer dart contribute to the difference of fertility rate between collared rhinoceroses and uncollared rhinoceroses.

• same problem with the blue thing. if that actually means 'for OTHER reasons', then yes.
(EVERY action is done 'for reasons'.)

• the green thing is too strong. in this case we are only establishing a correlation (NOT establishing a cause-effect relationship).
in other words, this would be evidence in favor of the notion that the dart contributes to infertility—but it falls far short of PROVING that notion.

[kedieez967]

Thank you very much for your kindly reply.

first post:

yes, i meant both of those thing.

Many thanks for your nice advice. i always wish that i could express my idea in English as clearly and briefly as you do, and i do enjoy read your words.
i will try my best to overcome it, even if it is a little difficult to nonnative English learner.

second post:

1# yes, my typo.

2# nice explanation, i got it.

[RonPurewal]

no worries—english is not an easy language to learn in adulthood.

more importantly, i understood the point of everything that you wrote. so, your writing must not be so bad.
(:

[RachitS713]

Hi Ron,
I went through the press posts on this thread I have the following questions.

1)I might be wrong... but evaluate argument does entertain new info. So, why did we eliminate other options as irrelevant?

2) I understand we do not need to attack the conclusion and just break a link in the chain somewhere. But, in option B we have an opportunity to compare the process with other mammal. This should definitely show a correlation between tranks rhinos and other large thanked mammals. Wouldn'the this evaluate the argument?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
I went through the press posts on this thread I have the following questions.

1)I might be wrong... but evaluate argument does entertain new info. So, why did we eliminate other options as irrelevant?

are you sure you read the whole thread? (:

the issue in the argument is summarized succinctly on the first page of this thread (1st page, 3rd and 9th posts).

those posts already explain, individually, why each of the wrong answers is irrelevant.

[RonPurewal]

2) I understand we do not need to attack the conclusion and just break a link in the chain somewhere. But, in option B we have an opportunity to compare the process with other mammal. This should definitely show a correlation between tranks rhinos and other large thanked mammals. Wouldn'the this evaluate the argument?

the argument is concerned only with rhinoceroses. there's no reason to assume any sort of relationship between rhinos and other mammals, so, other mammals are irrelevant.