Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 05 May 2016, 12:26

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 0

A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 12:52
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:03) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statictics

A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 324
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 13:00
eyunni wrote:
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

Assumption: Pollution made seals vulnerable to distemper virus by weakening their immune system....E is the only option seems supporting the assumption/explanation to argument
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 178
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 14:31
i'll go for B
VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1104
Location: London
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 14:56
B, give additional info and somehow out of scope. if those countries are reducing the pollution, then Northern Sea is not polluted to the extent that polution can weaken the immune sys of the fish.

I would go with E. Still i am not sure, on the exam day i would pick it anyway
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2007, 20:56
eyunni wrote:
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

I really don't know on this one. A seems to be the only one that even remotely supports the argument.

E is incorrect because it goes against the argument. In fact it weakens the argument. E says that pollution was not the cause of the seals weakened immune system, but rather the first time encounter of the virus.

B: Weakens the argument by saying pollution was pretty much prevented into the North Sea.

C. Irrelevant. nothing about declining populations diesease or anything of that nature in the argument.

D. This is totally irrelevant. 2 species of seals, great. But doesn't support the argument in any way.

A: this seems really out of scope, but it says the other species saw steep declines suggesting that something else may have been the cause. I really don't know though b/c this is way off the chart for usual CR's.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 06:14
Ok. I too got this CR wrong. But the one tip that I learned on research from a CR book is that for any "strengthen/most strongly supports" type of questions, analogies/similarities, though out of scope, are usually very possible answer choices. Here, choice A provides an analogy/similarity with the fact that:

A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die

Choice (A) says:
At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population

The remaining answer choices can be eliminated by POE. IMO, the choice A is justified by the above reasoning.

OA is A.

Last edited by eyunni on 26 Sep 2007, 06:27, edited 1 time in total.
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 15:14
eyunni wrote:
Ok. I too got this CR wrong. But the one tip that I learned on research from a CR book is that for any "strengthen/most strongly supports" type of questions, analogies/similarities, though out of scope, are usually a very possible answer choices. Here, choice A provides an analogy/similarity with the fact that:

A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die

Choice (A) says:
At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population

The remaining answer choices can be eliminated by POE. IMO, the choice A is justified by the above reasoning.

OA is A.

Exactly, nothing else even comes close to strengthening the conclusion. A is very weak, but it does provide minimal support.
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2007, 21:57
eyunni wrote:
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

I was between A and B and I picked B.
I can't see the relations in A since you don't know why all other species died. It can be some other cause other than pollution. In B, I feel that it shows there is pollution on the North Sea.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2007, 00:39
(A) Irrelevant

(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.

(C) Irrelevant

(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal
and the gray seal.

(E) weakens the argument as it says immune system is poor not because of pollution

Down to B and D. I'll take B. It says there is indeed pollution in the north sea.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 295
Location: Russia, Moscow
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2007, 03:05
eyunni wrote:
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

IMO it's B, in A nothing relates "steep drops in population" to "the severe pollution..."
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2007, 06:28
OA is A
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2007, 10:35
eyunni wrote:
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

IMO it's B, in A nothing relates "steep drops in population" to "the severe pollution..."

Likes ive been saying. Nothern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead to prevent pollution from entering the North Sea at its source.

Meaning that pollution does not come from the North Sea or someone is not pollutiing directly into the North Sea. Also, these countries are pretty much preventing pollution from entering the North Sea. Even if these countries cannot prevent all the polution, there is NOTHING in this choice that relates pollution to decreased populations of Seals or any animal.

Just says that some pollution may or may not have entered the North Sea from a source other than the North Sea. You can't extend this argument to the main passage by saying this pollution must have been the cause. We need more info saying that it did have an effect.

After all this, even if u still can't get it, just look at the passage: "Severe pollution." There is no indication from answer choice B, that the pollution that may or may not enter the North Sea is "Severe." In fact choice B suggests the opposite. B/c these countries are preventing the pollution from its source, it is very likely that the pollution is NOT severe. maybe not true, but u can't assume from this that the pollution that does enter the North Sea to be SEVERE.

hope that helps.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 295
Location: Russia, Moscow
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2007, 00:39
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
eyunni wrote:
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanation for the deaths cannot rest here, however. There must be a reason the normally latent virus could prevail so suddenly: clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the explanation given in the argument?
(A) At various times during the last ten years, several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea have experienced unprecedented steep drops in population.
(B) By reducing pollution at its source, Northern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead in preventing pollution from reaching the waters of the North Sea.
(C) For many years, fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.
(D) There are two species of seal found throughout the North Sea area, the common seal and the gray seal.
(E) The distemper caused by the virus was a disease that was new to the population of North Sea seals in May 1988, and so the seals’ immune systems were unprepared to counter it.

IMO it's B, in A nothing relates "steep drops in population" to "the severe pollution..."

Likes ive been saying. Nothern Europe and Scandinavia have been taking the lead to prevent pollution from entering the North Sea at its source.

Meaning that pollution does not come from the North Sea or someone is not pollutiing directly into the North Sea. Also, these countries are pretty much preventing pollution from entering the North Sea. Even if these countries cannot prevent all the polution, there is NOTHING in this choice that relates pollution to decreased populations of Seals or any animal.

Just says that some pollution may or may not have entered the North Sea from a source other than the North Sea. You can't extend this argument to the main passage by saying this pollution must have been the cause. We need more info saying that it did have an effect.

After all this, even if u still can't get it, just look at the passage: "Severe pollution." There is no indication from answer choice B, that the pollution that may or may not enter the North Sea is "Severe." In fact choice B suggests the opposite. B/c these countries are preventing the pollution from its source, it is very likely that the pollution is NOT severe. maybe not true, but u can't assume from this that the pollution that does enter the North Sea to be SEVERE.

hope that helps.

Thanks, but I still do not know how to prove that choice A is correct other than by POE
Re: CR_1000_500 Distemper virus   [#permalink] 27 Sep 2007, 00:39
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 A deadly virus that has claimed the lives of local villagers has been 1 07 Aug 2015, 14:55
13 The prevalence of a simian virus has been directly correlate 31 09 Feb 2014, 21:43
A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal 19 29 May 2010, 09:42
Y has been believed to cause Z. A new report, noting that Y 9 06 Oct 2006, 13:52
Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. 17 11 Jul 2006, 18:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by