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

 It is currently 24 Aug 2016, 07:43

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# lsat-oct2001-q8

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 601
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
WE: Business Development (Telecommunications)
Followers: 36

Kudos [?]: 255 [1] , given: 410

lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 09:53
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

40% (03:39) correct 60% (01:40) wrong based on 12 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

This Question is a Famous one. It is discussed on the GC many times....

Q20)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 ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Im expecting a good debate on this question
Intern
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

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

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 10:48
Q20)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 ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases. CORRECT

The argument says that lobsters are caught in harbor, and the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases. But Option (E) weaken the argument as it gives evidence that humans often ill due to eating lobster with gill diseases. This clearly implies that lobsters in the harbor are infected and the proposal is not pointless.
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 129
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 257 [0], given: 10

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 10:50
RaviChandra wrote:
This Question is a Famous one. It is discussed on the GC many times....

Q20)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 ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Im expecting a good debate on this question

here conclusion is: proposal is pointless since lobsters do not live longer so even it contract gill disease it does not matter. why it does not matter because anyways lobsters are dead so whether lobster contract disease or not it's immaterial. in first line of the argument it is mentioned that lobsters are eaten by human. to weaken the argument we need to establish link between humans and lobsters with gill disease. same thing is mentioned in option E.
other options can be discarded at ease as i feel. i am not getting any point in other options. it will interesting to see the correctness and argument behind other options.
looking for the OA
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 89
Location: United States
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 5

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 11:22
There are famous questions? I guess when I start recognizing the famous questions, that means I am ready to take the test, right?

I can see why there would be a debate. IMO it's between B and E. Even though B brings up a point about the lobsters' life expectancy outside of the harbour, it doesn't specifically say that their life is extended past the point of when they would be affected by the diseases.

I think it should be E, which states another reason why the proposal is not "pointless."
Manager
Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 66
Followers: 1

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

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 12:29
RaviChandra wrote:
This Question is a Famous one. It is discussed on the GC many times....

Q20)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 ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Im expecting a good debate on this question

What ever weakens the conclusion that ''the proposal is pointless because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases'' is the answer.

A : Out of scope, the point of discussion is sewage and other contaminant are irrelevant
B : Again out of scope, it is not about open ocean and industrial harbours
C : This is the most attractive answer but then Breeding is not relevant.
D : Detection of gill disease cannot be done from surface actually strengthen the conclusion because if gill disease
cannot be detected then lobster are consumable.
E : CORRECT
It Weakens the point in quotes above because even though the lobster do not live long enough to be harmed by gill disease, the humans eating them are harmed.
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 40
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 4

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 14:12
1
This post received
KUDOS
20. E

The proposition to re-route the contaminated water is to have lobsters which could be eaten by Human. In the end, if lobster is not harmed by disease but still can result in diseases in Human and hence primary purpose of proposition is beaten
Intern
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

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

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 21:57
vedprakashchauhan wrote:
20. E

The proposition to re-route the contaminated water is to have lobsters which could be eaten by Human. In the end, if lobster is not harmed by disease but still can result in diseases in Human and hence primary purpose of proposition is beaten

Good every one Chose E.

we sould never prove the premise is wrong Rather we should accept the premise and prove the conclusion drawn from the premise has a flaw.(few did this mistake while explaining)

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

This clearly says the sewage water is directed to another place. and lobster should be safe.

the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Even though the water is directed into lobster living water,The lobsters will be killed even before being effected gill discease. So can we infer they will not be effect by gills discease?

Now option E says.
Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Option will definatly weaken the conclusion if it proves that lobsters are effected by sewage water

I agree the OA for this Question E... But im waiting for a convincing answer....
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 39
Location: Lexington, KY
WE 1: 6 years in IT
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2010, 23:13
E is the answer. Had read it before, so wont take a pat on the back for this
_________________

To reach a port, we must sail—Sail, not tie at anchor—Sail, not drift.

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 13

Re: lsat-oct2001-q8 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2010, 11:47
very nice question indeed...i fell for the obvious trap laid out by B... many lobsters dont live long enough to be harmed by the disease...but if affected by the disease and eaten by humans they would cause problems for humans... good ques
Re: lsat-oct2001-q8   [#permalink] 27 Jun 2010, 11:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# lsat-oct2001-q8

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.