A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest. Since the scrub jay is...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest. Since the scrub jay is a protected species, the developer must ensure that developing the tract will not harm the jays. To meet this requirement, the developer has proposed purchasing a tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped. Since that tract is already inhabited by scrub jays, clearly it has suitable habitat for the birds that development will displace.
In order for the developer's plan for meeting the requirement to succeed, which of the following must be true?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A developer wants to develop a tract of scrub forest where scrub jays now nest. |
|
| Since the scrub jay is a protected species, the developer must ensure that developing the tract will not harm the jays. |
|
| To meet this requirement, the developer has proposed purchasing a tract of nearby scrub forest that would remain undeveloped. |
|
| Since that tract is already inhabited by scrub jays, clearly it has suitable habitat for the birds that development will displace. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a problem (developer wants to build where protected birds live), introduces a constraint (must protect the birds), presents a solution (buy nearby habitat), and concludes with reasoning about why this solution works (the nearby area already has the same birds).
Main Conclusion:
The nearby tract that the developer wants to purchase is suitable habitat for the scrub jays that will be displaced from the development site.
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that because scrub jays already live in the nearby tract, it proves the habitat is suitable for displaced birds. This reasoning connects the evidence (jays currently live there) to the conclusion (it will work for displaced jays) through a simple logical link.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what must be true for the developer's plan to actually work. This means identifying unstated conditions that are necessary for the conclusion to hold.
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve habitat suitability (quality), displacement capacity (quantity), and the assumption that existing habitat presence equals future adequacy (activity/outcome).
Strategy
Look for gaps in the developer's reasoning. The argument assumes that because the nearby tract already has scrub jays, it can accommodate the displaced birds. We need to think about what could make this plan fail while respecting the given facts. Focus on capacity limitations, habitat requirements, and practical implementation issues.
This suggests that some nesting sites will remain on the original development tract. However, this isn't necessary for the developer's plan to succeed. The plan is specifically designed to provide alternative habitat, so it could work even if all original sites are destroyed, as long as the nearby tract can accommodate the displaced birds.
This describes what happens when scrub jays lose their nests, but this doesn't need to be true for the plan to work. In fact, the plan is designed to prevent harm, so whether displaced birds become disoriented is irrelevant to the plan's success - the goal is to provide them with suitable alternative habitat before displacement occurs.
Whether the undeveloped tract is suitable for development is completely irrelevant to the wildlife protection plan. The developer's requirement is to protect the scrub jays, not to make economic decisions about land use. This tract could be perfect for development but still serve as excellent wildlife habitat.
This claims the undeveloped tract must be the ONLY suitable nearby habitat. But this is unnecessarily restrictive - the plan could succeed even if other suitable habitats exist elsewhere. The developer only needs ONE viable option to meet the protection requirement, not the only possible option.
This directly addresses the critical gap in the developer's reasoning. The argument assumes that because scrub jays already live in the nearby tract, it can serve as habitat for displaced birds. But if that tract is already at capacity with existing jays, there would be no room for the additional displaced birds. For the plan to actually succeed, there must be available space and resources for the new arrivals. This is what must be true for the developer's plan to work.