aiglos wrote:
The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 12th Edition, 2009Practice QuestionQuestion No.: CR 30
Page: 509
The Eurasian ruffe, a fish species inadvertently introduced into North America’s Great Lakes in recent years, feeds on the eggs of lake whitefish, a native species, thus threatening the lakes’ natural ecosystem. To help track the ruffe’s spread, government agencies have produced wallet-sized cards about the ruffe. The cards contain pictures of the ruffe and explain the danger they pose; the cards also
request anglers to report any ruffe they catch.
Which of the following, if true, would provide most support for the prediction that the agencies’ action will have its intended effect?
(A) The ruffe has spiny fins that make it unattractive as prey.
(B) Ruffe generally feed at night, but most recreational fishing on the Great Lakes is done during daytime hours.
(C)
Most people who fish recreationally on the Great Lakes are interested in the preservation of the lake whitefish because it is a highly prized game fish.
(D) The ruffe is one of
several nonnative species in the Great Lakes whose existence threatens the survival of lake whitefish populations there.
(E) The bait that most people use when fishing for whitefish on the Great Lakes is not attractive to ruffe.
How to Strengthen an Argument
Use the following points to effectively strengthen arguments:
1. Identify the conclusion—this is what you are trying to strengthen!
Because Strengthen questions are the polar opposite of Weaken questions, the correct approach to supporting a GMAT argument is to help the author’s conclusion. When evaluating an answer, ask yourself, “Would this answer choice assist the author in some way?” If so, you have the correct answer.
2. Personalize the argument.
Personalizing allows you to see the argument from a very involved perspective and helps you assess the strength of each answer.
3. Look for weaknesses in the argument.
This may seem like a strange recommendation since your task is to strengthen the argument, but a weak spot in an argument is tailor-made for an answer that eliminates that weakness. If you see a weakness or flaw in the argument, look for an answer that eliminates the weakness. In other words, close any gap or hole in the argument.
Many Strengthen questions require students to find the missing link between a premise and the conclusion. These missing links are assumptions made by the author, and bringing an assumption to light strengthens the argument because it validates part of the author’s thinking.
4. Arguments that contain analogies or use surveys rely upon the validity of those analogies and surveys.
Answer choices that strengthen the analogy or survey, or establish their soundness, are usually correct.
5. Remember that the correct answer can strengthen the argument just a little or a lot. This variation is what makes these questions difficult.
Three Incorrect Answer Traps
The same type of wrong answer traps appear in Strengthen as in Weaken questions:
1. Opposite Answers. These answers do the exact opposite of what is needed—they weaken the argument. Because of their direct relation to the conclusion they are attractive answer choices, despite the fact that they result in consequences opposite of those intended.
2. Shell Game Answers. Remember, a Shell Game occurs when an idea or concept is raised in the stimulus and then a very similar idea appears in the answer choice, but the idea is changed just enough to be incorrect but still attractive. In Strengthen questions, the Shell Game is usually used to support a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in the stimulus.
3. Out of Scope Answers. These answers simply miss the point of the argument and support issues that are either unrelated to the argument or tangential to the argument.
These three answer types are not the only ways an answer choice can be attractively incorrect, but they appear frequently enough that you should be familiar with each form.
Tracking the RuffeStep 1: Identify the QuestionThis question asks you to provide support for the prediction, so this is a Strengthen the Argument question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the ArgumentR bad for lakes
To track R:
Cards to ang. → report if catch R
This argument presents a plan. Are there any issues or concerns about this plan working as intended?
(By the way, anglers is another name for people who fish.)
Step 3: Pause and State the GoalOn Strengthen questions, the goal is to find a piece of information that would support the conclusion. In this case, the correct should make the plan at least somewhat more likely to work.
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right(A) The attractiveness of the ruffe as prey does not affect whether the plan to track the ruffe will work.
(B) This answer presents information that would make the plan less likely to work. If fishermen tend to fish at a time when the ruffe generally don’t feed, they will not catch many ruffe and will therefore not be very helpful in tracking its spread.
(C) CORRECT. This information makes the plan more likely to work. If people who fish care about preserving the lake, they are more likely to take the time and the effort to report any ruffe that they catch.
(D) This answer is irrelevant because the plan presented in the argument is about tracking the ruffe.
The effects of other species are not important to this plan.
(E) If anglers use bait that is not attractive to the ruffe, anglers will not catch many ruffe even if ruffe are present in the lake. These anglers will not be very helpful in tracking the ruffe, so this answer actually weakens the argument.