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

It is currently 25 Nov 2014, 19:05

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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide.

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1726
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 69

Kudos [?]: 358 [2] , given: 109

Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 13 Feb 2011, 14:48
2
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (02:28) correct 64% (01:35) wrong based on 403 sessions
Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. Not coincidentally, the earth’s ozone layer has been continuously depleted throughout the last 50 years. Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes. Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation. In addition, their gelatinous eggs lack the protection of leathery or hard shells. Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer.

Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT:

(A) Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes.
(B) Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of nonamphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from
UV-B.
(C) Atmospheric ozone has been significantly depleted above all the areas of the world in
which amphibian populations are declining.
(D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.
(E) Amphibian populations have declined continuously for the last 50 years.

I don't agree with the OE:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
OE: A is the correct answer. "The answer fails to shed any light -positive or negative- on the connection between the ozone depletion and the amphibian population decline. Because the argument is concerned with the damage done by UV-B radiation, the fact that UV-B is the only damaging type of radiation blocked by ozone is irrelevant".
What would happen if there were other rays which are killing the amphibian populations? If other rays were the culprit, I think that the argument would be hurted in certain way. What do you think?


Source:CR Powerscore
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Take a Survey about GMAT Prep - Win Prizes!

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 928
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 204 [1] , given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 13 Feb 2011, 22:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Its A Vs D. Since rest strengthen the conclusion. I will try to answer why D is not the answer. For any causal argument X->Y any alt cause will weaken the argument. D says that the alt cause does not exist and laso that the effect does not exist before the cause. If the natural habitat were not endangered before. D is OUT, Which makes A as the answer. Under pressure just don't think why answer is an answer - mark the answer and move on. Over-analysis is a trap of gmat.
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 214
WE 1: 4 yr IT
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 46 [2] , given: 26

Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 01:57
2
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
IMO the choice is between A and B. others obviously help strengthen the argument.

If we look at B, we'll see B says other animals which are safer from UV-B rays don't have any decline. which, when paraphrased means UV-B rays are the factor behind the decline(which is another way of saying "Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation" as stated in the premise). we know "Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes." so if UV-B rays are a factor, then indirectly, the depletion of ozone layer, which allowed the UV-B rays to enter is the cause. So it is STRENGTHENING.

Take A. "Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes" . if this is strengthening the argument then the opposite of this should weaken the argument. what is the opposite?? other type of radiations blocked by atmospheric ozone also cause damage. Now, what is the conclusion of the argument?? "Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer." Is this conclusion weakened in any way by the previous statement?? no. the key here is "blocked by the atmospheric ozone". even if other radiation are the cause of decline, ozone layer depletion will allow those rays to enter and will therefore become an indirect cause. Either way ozone layer depletion is the cause of decline. this does not affect the conclusion. So A is clearly irrelevant, whether it is true or false, doesn't affect the conclusion.

Hence IMO A
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 928
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 03:17
I agree with vinzycoolfire. B didnt caught me since its still heading south. I want a answer heading North. If someone says X is a better killer than Y - X and Y are both killers they are not saints. In any case life of the client will be endangered - still the arg is heading in one direction. Same here. Depletion of O layer is the culprit - which radiations in O layer is irrelevant hence A is OUT

Negation - that is awesome way. +1 to vinzycoolfire. The opposite of "only one" is some. Some of raditions besides X are causes of the population erosion. So what ? The arg is still on and says ozone is the real culprit. The arg is not negated when assum is. Hence it cannot be the real assumption / strengthener.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1726
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 69

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 109

Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2011, 06:35
gmat1220 wrote:
Under pressure just don't think why answer is an answer - mark the answer and move on. Over-analysis is a trap of gmat.


Totally agree with you. Do that during the real exam or a practice CAT. However, during your routine preparation, you have to be sure why you are choosing an option.
That will increase your effectiveness. Otherwise, the chances will decide your score.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Take a Survey about GMAT Prep - Win Prizes!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 58
Schools: INSEAD,Nanyang Business school, CBS,
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 8

Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 15 Feb 2011, 01:27
IMO D
_________________

Working without expecting fruit helps in mastering the art of doing fault-free action !

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

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

Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 07 Mar 2011, 09:37
What OE says about D? Why does it strengthen?

D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2012
Posts: 43
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 11

Re: Amphibian populations [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2014, 16:53
magnolia wrote:
What OE says about D? Why does it strengthen?

D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.



I am wondering the same thing. Bump.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Dec 2013
Posts: 16
Location: United States
GPA: 3.5
WE: Brand Management (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 18

Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2014, 01:44
I go with D,can someone explain why it's not correct?...OA says A
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 127
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 32 [1] , given: 110

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2014, 02:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
karanwalia wrote:
I go with D,can someone explain why it's not correct?...OA says A


D is actually strengthening. It says that the natural habitat has not shrunk. If natural habitat had shrunk then we can attribute the reduction in population of amphibians to that and not to depleting Ozone.

A is correct, since it does not have any impact on the conclusion. This is very important difference between a weakener and strengthen except question. A weakener has to essentially attack the conclusion whereas 'strengthen except' or 'weaken except' does not have to do so necessarily. Even if it does not have any impact the answer is perfectly fine.

Hope its clear!
_________________

“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.”

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 34
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 26

Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2014, 09:37
ankur1901 wrote:
karanwalia wrote:
I go with D,can someone explain why it's not correct?...OA says A


D is actually strengthening. It says that the natural habitat has not shrunk. If natural habitat had shrunk then we can attribute the reduction in population of amphibians to that and not to depleting Ozone.

A is correct, since it does not have any impact on the conclusion. This is very important difference between a weakener and strengthen except question. A weakener has to essentially attack the conclusion whereas 'strengthen except' or 'weaken except' does not have to do so necessarily. Even if it does not have any impact the answer is perfectly fine.

Hope its clear!



I am still not able to understand why D is not the answer...since the natural inhabitat has not shrunk it means the ozone layer is not affecting the amphibians....thus weakening our conclusion and so it should be the answer
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 218
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 156

GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2014, 06:00
ankur1901 wrote:
karanwalia wrote:
I go with D,can someone explain why it's not correct?...OA says A


D is actually strengthening. It says that the natural habitat has not shrunk. If natural habitat had shrunk then we can attribute the reduction in population of amphibians to that and not to depleting Ozone.

A is correct, since it does not have any impact on the conclusion. This is very important difference between a weakener and strengthen except question. A weakener has to essentially attack the conclusion whereas 'strengthen except' or 'weaken except' does not have to do so necessarily. Even if it does not have any impact the answer is perfectly fine.

Hope its clear!



Chose A but not convinced with D.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Oct 2012
Posts: 34
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V36
GPA: 3.6
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 19

Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 10 Aug 2014, 02:44
AnmolKukreja wrote:
ankur1901 wrote:
karanwalia wrote:
I go with D,can someone explain why it's not correct?...OA says A


D is actually strengthening. It says that the natural habitat has not shrunk. If natural habitat had shrunk then we can attribute the reduction in population of amphibians to that and not to depleting Ozone.

A is correct, since it does not have any impact on the conclusion. This is very important difference between a weakener and strengthen except question. A weakener has to essentially attack the conclusion whereas 'strengthen except' or 'weaken except' does not have to do so necessarily. Even if it does not have any impact the answer is perfectly fine.

Hope its clear!



I am still not able to understand why D is not the answer...since the natural inhabitat has not shrunk it means the ozone layer is not affecting the amphibians....thus weakening our conclusion and so it should be the answer


let me see if i can help you out.

Answer D says the natural habitat has not become smaller over the past century --> this implies that this is not an alternate cause for the decline in the numbers of the amphibians hence it can imply that the actual cause for declining numbers is in fact the depletion in the ozone.

This is one of the ways of eliminating an answer choice that is eliminating an alternate cause(here shrinkage of habitat) implying that the stated cause(the depletion of ozone) is in fact the only cause of the effect(decline in amphibian numbers)

Hope this helps!!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 465
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 58

CAT Tests
Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2014, 12:52
I have a question about option C.
It seems as if option C may also weaken the argument.
If there has been significant reduction in the ozone especially where amphibians are living, maybe it's not that the ozone is affecting the amphibians? Maybe it's the amphibians affecting the ozone? perhaps they release some kind of gas that depletes the ozone?
Does anyone see it that way?
Re: Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide.   [#permalink] 10 Sep 2014, 12:52
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 Experts publish their posts in the topic When a city experiences a sharp decline in population, the Vineetk 14 12 Nov 2012, 23:29
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic The population in town A declined at a constant rate from 10 trx123 16 09 Nov 2010, 11:23
14 Parland s alligator population has been declining in recent bsv180985 8 02 Dec 2009, 06:28
Amphibian population jaxtor 6 03 Jun 2009, 06:50
Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. rampuria 3 03 Oct 2008, 04:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide.

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| 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®.