The golden toad of Costa Rica, whose beauty

[k.naveen04]

Dear Instructor,

I encounter below RC in one of your mgmat test.
The golden toad of Costa Rica, whose beauty and rarity inspired an unusual degree of human interest from a public generally unconcerned about amphibians, may have been driven to extinction by human activity nevertheless. In the United States, a public relations campaign featuring the toad raised money to purchase and protect the toad’s habitat in Costa Rica, establishing the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in 1972. Although this action seemed to secure the toad's future, it is now apparent that setting aside habitat was not enough to save this beautiful creature. The toad's demise in the late 1980s was a harbinger of further species extinction in Costa Rica. Since that time, another twenty of the fifty species of frogs and toads known to once inhabit a 30 square kilometer area near Monteverde have disappeared.
The unexplained, relatively sudden disappearance of amphibians in Costa Rica is not a unique story. Populations of frogs, toads, and salamanders have declined or disappeared the world over. Scientists hypothesize that the more subtle effects of human activities on the world's ecosystems, such as the build-up of pollutants, the decrease in atmospheric ozone, and changing weather patterns due to global warming, are beginning to take their toll. Perhaps amphibians - whose permeable skin makes them sensitive to environmental changes - are the "canary in the coal mine," giving us early notification of the deterioration of our environment. If amphibians are the biological harbingers of environmental problems, humans would be wise to heed their warning.


According to the passage, all of the following are true EXCEPT:
A.) Humans are at least partially responsible for changing weather patterns.
B.) Toads, like frogs, have permeable skin.
C.) Human activity is not necessarily responsible for the global decline of amphibious populations.
D.) Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve was not paid for solely by the Costa Rican government.
E.) More frog and toad species than salamander species have disappeared in Costa Rica since the late 1980s.

However I would like to clarify more on choices C & E.
Choice C was rejected since we can't assume and is not stated in passage that human activity is not necessarily responsible for global decline. This may be true or may not be true.

Choice E---> This info too, not specified that more frog than salamander species have dissappeared xxxxxx and we can't assume anything. How this is right ans.
This may be true or may not be true.

Thanks for your support.

[Ash.D]

According to the passage, all of the following are true EXCEPT:
A.) Humans are at least partially responsible for changing weather patterns. Stated
B.) Toads, like frogs, have permeable skin. Stated
C.) Human activity is not necessarily responsible for the global decline of amphibious populations. Stated in 2nd para - The unexplained, relatively sudden disappearance of amphibians in Costa Rica is not a unique story
D.) Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve was not paid for solely by the Costa Rican government. Stated
E.) More frog and toad species than salamander species have disappeared in Costa Rica since the late 1980s. It is not stated anywhere in the RC that more frog and toad species than salamander have disappeared "The unexplained, relatively sudden disappearance of amphibians in Costa Rica is not a unique story"


My Ans is E (Please correct me if i am wrong)

regards,

Asha

[k.naveen04]

Thanks ashadharan for your reply.

But no where is the passage (even in 2nd para) refers "that Human activity is not necessarily responsible for the global decline of amphibious population"

Even " Scientists hypothesize that the more subtle effects of human activities on the world's ecosystems" ---> its only hypothesize and may or may not be a fact

I still didn't get why C was ruled out.

thxs

[tim]

i'm not convinced that you found this question on one of our tests, since this passage does not appear in our database. If you actually found this problem in one of our CAT exams, please email me your real name at tim@manhattangmat.com along with which test the passage appeared on and which question number. Then i will be able to look up the problem and help you further. Otherwise, if the problem did not come from our CAT exams you will need to identify the source of the problem and post in the appropriate forum..

[k.naveen04]

Dear Tim,

This is from mgmat test 2, question 25. I dropped a mail to you too.

thxs

[tim]

Hi Naveen,
Thanks for the info that helped me track down the problem. C is ruled out for exactly the reason listed in the OA *and* that you described in your post - if scientists *hypothesize* something it very clearly means that we cannot be 100% sure it is true or is not true. Hence the "not necessarily" aspect of C, which is clearly backed up by the "hypothesize" language..

[mask1ner]

I understand why answer choices A, B and C are incorrect and why answer choice E is correct. However, I don't think answer choice D is entirely correct either. The term "government" (or any of its synonyms) is literally not mentioned in the passage. The passage explicitly states that a US based PR campaign raised funds to purchase and protect the toad's habitat. In order for answer choice D to be correct, the Costa Rican government must have participated in this initiative as well. Since no information is provided in the passage to confirm this, aren't we making an assuming to eliminate this answer choice? E.g., for all we know, perhaps the Costa Rican gov't had no interest to protect and preserve the Monteverde Cloud Forest.

Is my logic flawed or does this question need to be tweaked?

[mask1ner]

Ron Purewal's response:

nope -- logic is flawed. the choice says:
"Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve was not paid for solely by the Costa Rican government"
this just means that the percent of the payment that was paid by the CR government was not 100% ("not solely").
this means that the percentage could be any percentage less than 100% ... including 0%.

in fact, the easiest way to think about this -- and about all other CR statements containing the word "not" -- is just to phrase the statement without "not", and then think about the opposite scenario.

if the CR government didn't pay for any of it at all (0% of it), then is the following statement true or false?: Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve was paid for solely by the Costa Rican government.

this is false, so the above statement is true.

[tim]

It's difficult to tell where Ron's response ends and where yours begins, and it is also difficult to tell whether you still have a question. Can you tell us a little more if you still have a question?

[as2764]

I understand why answer choices A, B and C are incorrect and why answer choice E is correct. However, I don't think answer choice D is entirely correct either. The term "government" (or any of its synonyms) is literally not mentioned in the passage. The passage explicitly states that a US based PR campaign raised funds to purchase and protect the toad's habitat. In order for answer choice D to be correct, the Costa Rican government must have participated in this initiative as well. Since no information is provided in the passage to confirm this, aren't we making an assuming to eliminate this answer choice? E.g., for all we know, perhaps the Costa Rican gov't had no interest to protect and preserve the Monteverde Cloud Forest.

Is my logic flawed or does this question need to be tweaked?

(D) says Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve was not paid for solely by the Costa Rican government.

meaning CR government paid <100% for the forest preserve.

when we read this in the passage:
In the United States, a public relations campaign raised money to protect the toad’s habitat in Costa Rica, establishing the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in 1972.

boom -- we find out that someone else also paid, so whatever amount CR paid (we don't care how much it was), it was anything, BUT 100%

Ron's CR perspective is dead on.
Tim, thanks for the clarification on (C).

[jnelson0612]

Good. :-)