Each year red-winged blackbirds stop in a certain region of Midland Province on their spring and fall migrations. In the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Each year red-winged blackbirds stop in a certain region of Midland Province on their spring and fall migrations. In the fall, they eat a significant portion of the province's sunflower crop. This year Midland farmers sought permits to set out small amounts of poisoned rice during the blackbirds' spring stop in order to reduce the fall blackbird population. Some residents voiced concern that the rice could threaten certain species of rare migratory birds. Nevertheless, the wildlife agency approved the permits.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the wildlife agency's approval of the permits, given the concerns voiced by some residents?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Each year red-winged blackbirds stop in a certain region of Midland Province on their spring and fall migrations. |
|
| In the fall, they eat a significant portion of the province's sunflower crop. |
|
| This year Midland farmers sought permits to set out small amounts of poisoned rice during the blackbirds' spring stop in order to reduce the fall blackbird population. |
|
| Some residents voiced concern that the rice could threaten certain species of rare migratory birds. |
|
| Nevertheless, the wildlife agency approved the permits. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage presents a conflict situation: farmers have a crop damage problem from blackbirds and propose a solution (poison), but residents raise environmental concerns. Despite these concerns, the wildlife agency approves the permits. We need to find what justifies this approval.
Main Conclusion:
There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it's a setup for the question asking us to justify the wildlife agency's decision to approve the permits.
Logical Structure:
This is actually a premise-heavy setup rather than a complete argument. The passage gives us the situation (blackbird crop damage), the proposed solution (poisoned rice), the concern (harm to rare birds), and the decision (permit approval). The question asks us to justify this decision, so we need to find what would make the agency's approval reasonable given the environmental concerns.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the wildlife agency's decision seem more reasonable and justified, despite the residents' concerns about harm to rare migratory birds.
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve specific activities (poisoning blackbirds in spring), specific consequences (reducing fall crop damage vs. threatening rare birds), and the agency's decision quality (whether approval was justified).
Strategy
We need to look for information that either minimizes the risk to rare birds or maximizes the benefits of the plan, making the agency's approval seem well-reasoned. This could involve showing the poison won't actually harm rare birds, that there are safeguards in place, or that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks.
This tells us that red-winged blackbirds arrive before other birds in spring. This directly addresses the residents' concern about harm to rare migratory birds. If blackbirds are the first to arrive, they'll eat the poisoned rice before the rare birds even get there, eliminating the threat to endangered species. This provides strong justification for the agency's approval because it shows a natural timing safeguard that protects rare birds while still solving the farmers' crop damage problem.
This says the poison makes birds unable to produce viable eggs rather than killing them. While this might seem less harmful, it doesn't actually address the residents' concern about threatening rare migratory birds. Whether the rare birds die or become unable to reproduce, both outcomes would 'threaten' these species. The residents' concern about harm to rare birds remains valid, so this doesn't justify the agency's approval.
This explains that few native birds normally eat rice since rice isn't grown in the province. However, the residents' concern was specifically about rare migratory birds (not native birds), and we're told these migratory birds do stop in this region. This choice doesn't tell us whether migratory birds would eat rice, so it doesn't address the core concern about threatening rare migratory species.
This mentions that farmers would be fined for using poison without permits. This explains why farmers sought permits in the first place, but it doesn't provide any justification for why the agency should approve those permits given the environmental concerns. It's just about the legal process, not about whether approval was the right decision.
This states that the poison has no detectable taste or smell. This actually makes the situation worse for the residents' concerns because if birds can't detect the poison, rare migratory birds would be more likely to eat it accidentally. This would increase rather than decrease the threat to rare species, making the agency's approval seem less justified.