A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

It is currently 09 Dec 2016, 20:20
GMAT Club Tests

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 593 [4] , given: 10

Reviews Badge
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2008, 19:17
4
This post received
KUDOS
24
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:41) correct 50% (02:05) wrong based on 770 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Request Expert Reply
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 576 [0], given: 210

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2008, 19:26
B because it provides an alternative explanation to why there could be more sea turtles returning in 5 years.


goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2008, 19:29
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.



B for me.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2008, 20:03
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.


B for me as it creates an opportunity for the explanation of the increased number of turtles laying eggs and also does not kill the environmentalists prediction
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 593 [0], given: 10

Reviews Badge
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2008, 16:28
OA is B
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Posts: 14
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V35
GPA: 3.6
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 36

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2013, 11:05
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. Th



I'll go for B, since it provides a reason why the number of turtles has increase.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2013
Posts: 84
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 12

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2014, 04:12
how B ?
can anyone please explain ?

thank you!
6 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 544
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT 1: 0 Q47 V29
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 376 [6] , given: 606

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2014, 23:17
6
This post received
KUDOS
Hi adymehta29,
Below is my reasoning for B. Initially I also got stumped by B .
Regards.
Conclusion:
environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.
Premise:
1. A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, "the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles", and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.
2. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.
Assumption:These turtles are from the same batch that survived 5 years ago on Baker's Beach.
Weakener: What if these are not from that batch.Then that way environmentalist argument wont be broken and hence author conclusion wold be weaken.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
B does that.
If Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old , then they are not from the same batch. They must be from an earlier batch and hence they were not impacted from the accident on Baker's Beach 5 years ago.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 14
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [1] , given: 0

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2014, 21:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
adymehta29 wrote:
how B ?
can anyone please explain ?

thank you!


Hi adymehta29,

Let me highlight some of the key facts from the prompt first:

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

Goal:
We need to weaken the argument attempting to disprove environmentalists' claim that the sea turtle population would decline (put that another way: we need to show that the sea turtle population could still be harmed by the spill).

B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.

If the turtles return when they're 10, then we have a scenario that shows that what's happening right now in no way can be used as a measure of the health of the sea turtle population. With this answer the turtles from the year of the spill could have been decimated, but the number of turtles right now could be bigger than ever if what we're seeing right now are those returning after 10 years.

If you'd like some additional follow up let me know. I'd be happy to help.
_________________

Allen T.
EMPOWERgmat Advisor
http://www.empowergmat.com

EMPOWERgmat GMAT Club Page, Study Plans, & Discounts
http://gmatclub.com/blog/courses/empowergmat-discount/?fl=menu

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 357
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 403

Reviews Badge
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2015, 03:35
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.



A- Contradicts the information in the passage.
B- We need to weaken the refutation. This option is plausible since it gives a reason to believe that indeed the eggs did not hatch and the returning females were actually born almost 5 years before the spill and thus remained unaffected.These females do not represent any successful hatching of eggs after the spill .
C-Irrelevant. Does not refute the prediction in any way. Instead it slightly strengthens the refutation.
D-Irrelevant. Does not refute the prediction in any way. Instead strengthens the refutation.
C-Irrelevant. Does not refute the prediction in any way. Instead it slightly strengthens the refutation.
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

4 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2014
Posts: 36
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V35
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 31 [4] , given: 179

Reviews Badge
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Mar 2015, 09:03
4
This post received
KUDOS
B!

To prove : the population HAS INDEED come down (and will go down in future)

B proves that females take 10 years to return thus proving that the number of females who returned now would be born 10 years before thus we
cannot make judgement based on the number returned this year.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10444
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Mar 2016, 13:24
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2015
Posts: 81
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 41

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2016, 19:11
What is wrong with D? Doesn't it provide an alternate explanatiion?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2016, 17:27
sa18 wrote:
What is wrong with D? Doesn't it provide an alternate explanatiion?


I'd like to second this.

Environmentalists: The spill will cause a decline in the population
Critic: This has been proven untrue

One way to weaken the claim that the spill had no effect certainly seems, to me at least, to be if you can provide an alternate explanation for why the environmentalists' claim could still be true despite the immediate evidence. No?
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 924
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Followers: 88

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 69

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2016, 07:26
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.


Author's Conclusion:- Environmentalist's prediction is unfounded.

Prediction of E's- turtle population will decline.

What we have to prove:- E's prediction is not unfounded. Or E is probably right in the prediction.

Looking at the argument, we see that there are few facts:-
-Oil spill occurred 5 years ago
-BB is the ONLY ground for MT
- Oil spill prevented nearly ALL eggs from hatching


Surprising fact:- MT still return to lay its eggs at the BB (She is not aware of the oil spill, it seems :P. The site is disastrous for the eggs)

But wait! Where are these turtles coming from? Nearly ALL eggs vanished 5 years ago and continue to prevent hatching eggs further.

The only reason could be that these females coming to lay their eggs here were born before oil spill. They will lay the eggs, which in turn will be vanished by oil, leading to decreased turtle population and supporting E's prediction.

Few Possible strengtheners-
1) The Turtles, along with eggs, coming to lay its eggs will severely be affected by the oil in the water.
2) The conditions at the base of sea has not improved since past 5 years and nearly ALL eggs will continue to vanish.


A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach. This is just a piece of information , but it doesn't tell us what will be the effect on number of turtles in future. Also, it is mentioned in the argument that there were eggs (only then they can vanish). It seems a false information.

B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old. This is what one possible answer. These turtles will eventually die at certain old age and the eggs will anyway be vanished.

C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach. We are talking about abnormal conditions in the argument.

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs. It makes us believe that if predator has declined , MT should increase. But it doesn't tell us the other way.

E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill. This is out of scope. Rejection doesn't mean that population will decline while their is increase in number of females going to the beach to lay eggs.
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Fuqua Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 711
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 61

Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2016, 05:23
DensetsuNo Can you share your opinion on the correct answer to this question.
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s   [#permalink] 13 Oct 2016, 05:23
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Experts publish their posts in the topic RATT RACE: Five years ago souvik101990 7 20 Apr 2016, 07:14
Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were mrinal2100 3 27 Aug 2011, 23:46
22 Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were prasannar 28 06 Apr 2008, 04:44
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s stevegt 6 12 Jul 2007, 08:27
Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were Swagatalakshmi 13 28 Feb 2007, 23:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.