|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 6
|
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish [#permalink]
 14 Mar 2011, 09:18
Question Stats:
33% (02:27) correct
66% (01:21) wrong based on 1 sessions
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release daily and which can alter the concentration of hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the cause, since the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment. Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? (A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded by paper manufacturers. (B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed. (C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours. (D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by the changes in hormone concentrations. (E) The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not thoroughly understood.
Last edited by vjsharma25 on 15 Mar 2011, 09:01, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 414
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
36
[0], given: 115
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
14 Mar 2011, 14:38
is it C?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
14 Mar 2011, 20:58
heygirl wrote: is it C? You are right!! Please explain your reasoning also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
14 Mar 2011, 20:58
heygirl wrote: is it C? You are right!! Please explain your reasoning also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 100
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 07:17
finally, i now understand the CR....
the main point is that the CR supposed that saying the eproductive abnormalities in fish caused by dioxin from paper mill, the dioxin which is released daily far downstream is totally wrong because the dioxin decomposes very slowly in ENVIROMENT and since the paper mill shutdowns sometimes and the fact is that the fish recovered very quickly right after the paper mill shutdowns ( shutdowns here is it stop releasing dioxin in the river and when it stop releasing dioxin in the river, the fish becomes nornal again, like nothing happen)
C weakens it by saying that although paper mills stop releasing dioxin into the river sometimes but its effect is still there because the river carrys dioxin in hours....
does it help?
this CR is tough... is it from Lsat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 183
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 8
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 07:57
vjsharma25 wrote: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish
that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One
possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release
daily and which can alter the concentration of
hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the
cause, since the fish recover normal hormone
concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill
shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the
environment.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood. vjsharma25, can you please let me know the source ?? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[1] , given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 08:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
Onell wrote: vjsharma25, can you please let me know the source ?? Thanks Source is mentioned in the question tag,its from LSAT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 414
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
36
[0], given: 115
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 08:48
vjsharma25 wrote: heygirl wrote: is it C? You are right!! Please explain your reasoning also. Sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 414
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
36
[0], given: 115
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 08:52
Conclusion here is dioxin is not the cause
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.not related to conclusion
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.if anything,strengthens the argument
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.best answer. it says that dioxin travels far downstream because of the currents. Hence, the first statement of the argument is weakened and thus the conclusion.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.unrelated to argument
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood. again,unrelated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 09:05
heygirl wrote: Conclusion here is dioxin is not the cause
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.not related to conclusion
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.if anything,strengthens the argument
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.best answer. it says that dioxin travels far downstream because of the currents. Hence, the first statement of the argument is weakened and thus the conclusion.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.unrelated to argument
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood. again,unrelated Now thats what I want about the discussion.Answers should be discussed. Good work heygirl 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[2] , given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 09:19
2
This post received
KUDOS
The argument is saying that dioxin can not be the cause for fish problem.Since dioxin doesn't decompose very easily it must be present in the water even when the mill is shutdown.But strangely fish recover.So there is some other cause to the fish problem.
So any answer choice which can show that indeed dioxin is the cause of the problem, is the right answer.
"C" says that Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover.During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it.So it proves that dioxin is the cause.Hence the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 414
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
36
[0], given: 115
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 09:36
Vjsharma,kudos to you! great explanation. it is so nice of you to post all such questions here. really helpful.
i'm doing my CR prep with only these questions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
15 Mar 2011, 09:50
heygirl wrote: Vjsharma,kudos to you! great explanation. it is so nice of you to post all such questions here. really helpful.
i'm doing my CR prep with only these questions! Thanks for the encouragement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 182
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 118
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
16 Mar 2011, 07:38
vjsharma25 wrote: The argument is saying that dioxin can not be the cause for fish problem.Since dioxin doesn't decompose very easily it must be present in the water even when the mill is shutdown.But strangely fish recover.So there is some other cause to the fish problem.
So any answer choice which can show that indeed dioxin is the cause of the problem, is the right answer.
"C" says that Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover.During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it.So it proves that dioxin is the cause.Hence the answer. I did not quite understand your analysis. You are saying that "Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover". If so this is strengthening the argument isn't it? From this how did you deduce that "During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it". Anyways as per the argument fish recover when the mill is shutdown. So the current has time to take the dioxin further downstream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
24
[1] , given: 6
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
16 Mar 2011, 09:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
nikhilsrl wrote: I did not quite understand your analysis. You are saying that "Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover". If so this is strengthening the argument isn't it?
No.Argument says that dioxin is not the cause for fish problem.Argument tries to support its conclusion by stating that dioxin decomposes very slowly,so even when mill is shutdown,dioxin should be present.Then how come fish recover,so there should be some cause other than dioxin.But if fish recover when dioxin is washed away then it means that dioxin is the root cause.Because in its absence all good things happen to fish.And when mill is not shutdown, because of which there is continuous supply of dioxin in the river,fish have reproductive abnormalities..
From this how did you deduce that "During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it". Anyways as per the argument fish recover when the mill is shutdown. So the current has time to take the dioxin further downstream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 278
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[1] , given: 4
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
17 Mar 2011, 12:28
1
This post received
KUDOS
c
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 182
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 118
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]
19 Mar 2011, 08:50
vjsharma25 wrote: nikhilsrl wrote: I did not quite understand your analysis. You are saying that "Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover". If so this is strengthening the argument isn't it?
No.Argument says that dioxin is not the cause for fish problem.Argument tries to support its conclusion by stating that dioxin decomposes very slowly,so even when mill is shutdown,dioxin should be present.Then how come fish recover,so there should be some cause other than dioxin.But if fish recover when dioxin is washed away then it means that dioxin is the root cause.Because in its absence all good things happen to fish.And when mill is not shutdown, because of which there is continuous supply of dioxin in the river,fish have reproductive abnormalities..
From this how did you deduce that "During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it". Anyways as per the argument fish recover when the mill is shutdown. So the current has time to take the dioxin further downstream.
Thanks I was just not able to get my head round that arg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Biologists and paper mills
[#permalink]
19 Mar 2011, 08:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
