|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 478
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.9
Followers: 15
Kudos [?]:
79
[0], given: 9
|
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more [#permalink]
 05 Jun 2009, 08:55
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
6. Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are
more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage
contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal,
millions of gallons of local sewage each day would
be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this
would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in
the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is
pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long
enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage
are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in
the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-
contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining
the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating
lobsters with gill diseases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 7
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
05 Jun 2009, 10:12
Is it E ??
_________________
"CEO in making"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 853
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
127
[0], given: 106
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
05 Jun 2009, 10:33
IMO B
_________________
Consider kudos for the good post ... 
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 478
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.9
Followers: 15
Kudos [?]:
79
[0], given: 9
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
05 Jun 2009, 11:49
OA is E. Want to share how you got it? These questions gave me trouble and I'd like to know your line of reasoning. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 853
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
127
[0], given: 106
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
05 Jun 2009, 13:13
bipolarbear wrote: OA is E. Want to share how you got it? These questions gave me trouble and I'd like to know your line of reasoning. Thanks. Ok! I missed the part (proposal is pointless) ==> I follow the line that proposal is pointless for lobsters, which is wrong.
_________________
Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 108
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
06 Jun 2009, 15:31
The answer is E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 13
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 1
|
could u please explain reasoning behind selecting E
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
105
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
07 Jun 2009, 04:03
bipolarbear wrote: 6. Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are
more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage
contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal,
millions of gallons of local sewage each day would
be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this
would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in
the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is
pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long
enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage
are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in
the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-
contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining
the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating
lobsters with gill diseases. I honestly can't see why option E is the answer. Option E says that Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters wilth gill diseases, but we don't really know whether those particular lobsters that option E talks about were from the harbour. It only seems as a general fact, which is no different from the first sentence of the argument!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 853
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
127
[0], given: 106
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
07 Jun 2009, 05:58
In below the conclusion says: Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is
pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases. In above, It says 'hardly any', which doesn't imply all, so there may be few cases. What is the point? Point, as mentioned in E, is that humans get affected with affected lobsters. So It is not pointless to reduce the amount of sewage. Hope it clears things a little. tarek99 wrote: bipolarbear wrote: 6. Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are
more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage
contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal,
millions of gallons of local sewage each day would
be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this
would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in
the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is
pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long
enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage
are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in
the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-
contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining
the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating
lobsters with gill diseases. I honestly can't see why option E is the answer. Option E says that Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters wilth gill diseases, but we don't really know whether those particular lobsters that option E talks about were from the harbour. It only seems as a general fact, which is no different from the first sentence of the argument! _________________
Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
105
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question [#permalink]
07 Jun 2009, 06:18
sudeep wrote: In below the conclusion says: Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is
pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases. In above, It says 'hardly any', which doesn't imply all, so there may be few cases. What is the point? Point, as mentioned in E, is that humans get affected with affected lobsters. So It is not pointless to reduce the amount of sewage. Hope it clears things a little. tarek99 wrote: bipolarbear wrote: 6. Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are
more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage
contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal,
millions of gallons of local sewage each day would
be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this
would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in
the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is
pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long
enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage
are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in
the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-
contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining
the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating
lobsters with gill diseases. I honestly can't see why option E is the answer. Option E says that Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters wilth gill diseases, but we don't really know whether those particular lobsters that option E talks about were from the harbour. It only seems as a general fact, which is no different from the first sentence of the argument! yeah thanks a lot. It turns out that I've missed the word "any" right after "hardly." One should be REALLY careful when coming across an argument that uses "any." It's such a small word, but it diverts the logic of the argument to a completely different direction......very dangerous word if you wanna ask me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Lobster Weaken Question
[#permalink]
07 Jun 2009, 06:18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
