Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 17:38 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 17:38

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
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 1135 [89]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 1135 [34]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [5]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 23 [3]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
3
Kudos
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?
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 362
Own Kudos [?]: 196 [3]
Given Kudos: 115
 Q39  V20
GPA: 3.5
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
3
Kudos
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
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 163
Own Kudos [?]: 375 [0]
Given Kudos: 118
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
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.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 1135 [3]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Posts: 14
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [4]
Given Kudos: 0
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V50
GPA: 3.93
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
4
Kudos
voodoochild 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.

OA - C Please explain why. This one completely blew me off.



The argument given against dioxin is as follows:

Fact - Dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment
Fact - Fish recover normal hormone concentrations quickly during mill shutdowns (presumably while dioxin is not being released into the environment)
Conclusion - Dioxin is unlikely to be the cause (of hormone imbalance in fish)

However, if normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours, then it doesn't matter that that dioxin decomposes slowly - it has all been carried away downstream, which means that the fish are now in dioxin-free conditions. Therefore, the fact that the fish recover quickly can't be used to rule out dioxin as the original cause of altered hormone concentrations.
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Status:Learning
Posts: 876
Own Kudos [?]: 566 [0]
Given Kudos: 755
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
Wow what a question .
The answer has to be C.
It is mentioned in the passage that Dioxin decomposes very slowly.
And if the water carry Dioxin very far in the river then the fish there will be affected .
So C is the answer .
I would also like an analysis of Option A please .
Thanks in advance
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Feb 2017
Posts: 521
Own Kudos [?]: 1034 [0]
Given Kudos: 1091
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
Could someone please explain why answer choice B is incorrect? if the rate at which dioxins decompose vary depending on conditions its exposed to, then if the dioxins are exposed to different conditions in the paper mills factory it would explain why they actually decompose faster when the mills shut down.
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Feb 2017
Posts: 521
Own Kudos [?]: 1034 [0]
Given Kudos: 1091
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
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.


Could someone please explain why answer choice B is incorrect? if the rate at which dioxins decompose vary depending on conditions its exposed to, then if the dioxins are exposed to different conditions in the paper mills factory it would explain why they actually decompose faster when the mills shut down.

nightblade354 GMATNinja daagh egmat
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1734
Own Kudos [?]: 5734 [2]
Given Kudos: 3054
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Send PM
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Kritisood, think about (B) for a minute. What conditions are they talking about? Any assumption you make to strengthen the argument can be made to weaken the argument as well. You say that because they are exposed, therefore they decompose faster. Well, what if the factors made the toxin last longer and decompose slower? We are only told that there is an impact; we are not told the relationship.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4946
Own Kudos [?]: 7624 [2]
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Kritisood wrote:
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.


Could someone please explain why answer choice B is incorrect? if the rate at which dioxins decompose vary depending on conditions its exposed to, then if the dioxins are exposed to different conditions in the paper mills factory it would explain why they actually decompose faster when the mills shut down.

nightblade354 GMATNinja daagh egmat


Hi Kriti

Option B states that dioxins decompose at different rates depending on the conditions to which it is exposed. However, while this could be a comparison between the rates of decomposition, it says nothing about the absolute rate of decomposition.

Secondly, the stimulus in the question very clearly states that dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment. Any facts presented in the question stimulus are to be accepted at face value. Combining the two (the question stimulus + option B), we can surmise that even though the the rate of decomposition of dioxins in the environment may vary, all of those rates would still be very slow. Thus, the reasoning presented in the stimulus still holds - the slow rate of decomposition added to the quick recovery of hormone concentrations by the fish even during brief shutdowns makes it unlikely that dioxins are the cause. Hence option (B) does not weaken the argument.

Hope this helps.
Current Student
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Posts: 184
Own Kudos [?]: 127 [0]
Given Kudos: 57
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
Quote:
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?


Thank you vjsharma25 for posting this brilliant question:

Argument - Reproductive abnormalities are because of dioxin. Dioxin is released daily. Dioxin affects the hormones. (Assumption that hormones affect the reproductive capability of the fish).
Conclusion - Dioxins do not affect. Reason - Fish recover the hormones during shut downs

Weakener idea - Dioxins do affect the fish and they recover the hormones because of some other reason.

(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded by paper manufacturers.
- Some can include (1 to 90%). If some = 1% of the studies then this statement cannot weaken the conclusion
-Wrong

(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed.
- Varies is really a vague term. Varies can mean the rate either is higher or is lower than provided.
- Wrong

(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours.
- Normal river currents - current not affected by the dioxin deposition = when the factories are temporarily off. If normal currents carry the dioxin away, the dioxin is not present when it was observed that fish recovered their hormones. This means that when the dioxin is present the hormones are affected.
This causation suggests that dioxin thus affect the hormones.
- Correct

(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by the changes in hormone concentrations.
Similar to choice A, some can include anything from 1% to 99%.
- Wrong

(E) The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not thoroughly understood.
- I selected this option during my first attempt. However, this option is not similar to use of "some". We do not require to know the exact reason why or how the hormones affect reproductive system. This option could have been a contender if it was stated that the connection is doubtful.
- Wrong
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 99
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
IMO,

Dioxin does not hurt the fish
why ?
- fish recover fast "although" during occasional shutdowns
and
- it decomposes slowly.

The author admits that the recovery is seen ALTHOUGH during occasional shutdowns
BUT he also believes that the cause that is the dioxin is still present because dioxins degrade into the environment slowly. Slow degradation means that the dioxins do not become ineffective overnight when the mills are shut.

Point: Therefore although dioxins are present but the mills are admittedly shut, the fish can recover.

Choice C says that the dioxins are washed away and hence not present. (No cause thats why you see no effect).
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Apr 2022
Posts: 203
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 277
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35 (Online)
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
Pls help. Unable to understand.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Status:Full-time employee
Affiliations: Apple Inc
Posts: 104
Own Kudos [?]: 124 [0]
Given Kudos: 93
Location: United States
Saupayan: Mazumdar
Concentration: Economics, Leadership
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
GPA: 3.89
WE:Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Send PM
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo KarishmaB
I really need your expert advise on this question. First of all, is this really an official question?
Coming to the question itself, I understand why option D is correct. However, I contend option B is also correct (based on how you interpret it - hence my first question, is it even official because official shouldn't have such possible ambiguity)

Here's why I think option B is correct (as a side note, this was my first impulse when I read it and I still can't shake it off):
Quote:
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?

(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed.

So basically the author is saying, hey dioxin can't be the cause because dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment. However, he isn't saying what dioxin does inside the body of a fish. Maybe it decomposes quickly inside a fish (this is exactly what option B is saying - condition in this case being inside fish body).
So, the author is assuming, hey dioxin takes a long time to decompose, but fish recover quickly when no new dioxin is released (i.e. factory shut). This means dioxin isn't causing the problem.
What if the actual explanation is something like: hey fish are affected by the dioxin entering their body and inside their body, the dioxin decomposes quickly? you would notice this effect hand the factories not being releasing a continuous stream of dioxin. So, the only time you see this effect is when the factories are actually shut for a prolonged period.

What am I missing here?
GMAT Club Bot
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are imme [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne