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

It is currently 30 Aug 2016, 17:40
GMAT Club Tests

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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 193
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 78

Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2012, 17:28
Complete discussion is provided at the below mentioned link
over-the-last-150-years-large-stretches-of-salmon-habitat-135658.html#p1103703



Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been eliminated by human activity: Line mining, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and agriculture as well as recreational and urban development. The numerical effect is obvious: there are fewer salmon in degraded regions than in pristine ones; however, habitat loss also has the potential to reduce genetic diversity. This is most evident in cases where it results in the extinction of entire salmon populations. Indeed, most analysts believe that some kind of environmental degradation underlies the demise of many extinct salmon populations. Although some rivers have been recolonized, the unique genes of the original populations have been lost.

Large-scale disturbances in one locale also have the potential to alter the genetic structure of populations in neighboring areas, even if those areas have pristine habitats. Why? Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be repopulated should the fish there disappear. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted. Straying rates remain relatively low when environmental conditions are stable, but can increase dramatically when streams suffer severe disturbance. The 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens, for example, sent mud and debris into several tributaries of the Columbia River. For the next couple of years, steelhead trout (a species included among the salmonids) returning from the sea to spawn were forced to find alternative streams. As a consequence, their rates of straying, initially 16 percent, rose to more than 40 percent overall.

Although no one has quantified changes in the rate of straying as a result of the disturbances caused by humans, there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption. Such a dramatic increase in straying from damaged areas to more pristine streams results in substantial gene flow, which can in turn lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations.

It can be inferred from the passage that the occasional failure of some salmon to return to their natal streams in order to spawn provides a mechanism by which

a. pristine streams that are near polluted streams become polluted themselves
b. the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
c. the number of salmon in pristine habitats decreases relative to the number in polluted streams
d. an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
e. the extinction of the salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams is accelerated

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA D

Why is B wrong? When high straying happens, dilution is the issue. Hence, when low straying happens, dilution is not an issue at all -- what B) says. Also lines (30), " Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be (40) repopulated should the fish there disappear. " --- implies genes are preserved -- and as the next sentence says "dilution happens" in case of high straying. Can't we infer that in case of low straying, no dilution happens and the genes are preserved?

The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generation" (see highlighted text) is based on which of the following assumptions?

a) a disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activtity will increasing the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did.

b) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of total spawning population

c) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptations

d) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect

e) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA C


Why is E) wrong? Also what support do we have for C) To me, "lowering the overall fitness" implies less likely to pass Darwin's "survival of the fittest" Hence, such adaptations are in fact bad -- 180 to what the OA is :( To me, the conclusion is that straying because of human effects causes bad things to Salmon in pristine streams. What's the support? Straying causing the dilution of the gene pool. I couldn't find that answer choice.

Thoughts?
Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3346
Location: India
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1376

Kudos [?]: 10231 [0], given: 1854

Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2012, 07:22
Hey in the first question, we are asked to provide an "inference" which MUST be true according to the passage!
Also, the passage says nothing about dilution during low levels of straying. It just says that with low levels of straying, there is a solid mix of new genes which could be good for the area. That is the are could or could not benefit from low straying. It becomes crucial if the population of fishes decline in the other area which could be increased by moderate level of straying. (please note that the new population could or could not be diluted: not indicated in the passage). It just means that low levels of straying could save a dying fish population.
_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3316
Followers: 1129

Kudos [?]: 4962 [1] , given: 54

Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2012, 10:17
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
voodoochild wrote:
It can be inferred from the passage that the occasional failure of some salmon to return to their natal streams in order to spawn provides a mechanism by which
a. pristine streams that are near polluted streams become polluted themselves
b. the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
c. the number of salmon in pristine habitats decreases relative to the number in polluted streams
d. an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
e. the extinction of the salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams is accelerated


[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA D

Why is B wrong? When high straying happens, dilution is the issue. Hence, when low straying happens, dilution is not an issue at all -- what B) says. Also lines (30), " Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be (40) repopulated should the fish there disappear. " --- implies genes are preserved -- and as the next sentence says "dilution happens" in case of high straying. Can't we infer that in case of low straying, no dilution happens and the genes are preserved?

B is quite wrong because the passage makes very clear --- when a stream is polluted, straying happens, which means dilution happens. The passage describes clearly the straying that resulted from the Mount St. Helen's eruption, and then around line (70) says that the effect of pollution probably would be about the same as what they saw at Mount St. Helen's. When the stream is polluted, the salmon can't use it to spawn, so they stray.

voodoochild wrote:
The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generation" (see highlighted text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
a) a disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activtity will increasing the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did.
b) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of total spawning population
c) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptations
d) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect
e) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA C


Why is E) wrong? Also what support do we have for C) To me, "lowering the overall fitness" implies less likely to pass Darwin's "survival of the fittest" Hence, such adaptations are in fact bad -- 180 to what the OA is :( To me, the conclusion is that straying because of human effects causes bad things to Salmon in pristine streams. What's the support? Straying causing the dilution of the gene pool. I couldn't find that answer choice.

You're correct in your understanding of "fitness" --- we are talking about Darwinian fitness here.

The passage says "high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted." In other words, the salmon in those pristine areas had adaptions particular suited to those areas, which made them quite fit, and along come a bunch of salmon from the polluted stream next door, and they genetically dilute the salmon of that pristine stream, making them less adapted to that unique niche, and hence less fit. That passage is enormous support for (C)

(E) is a typically GMAT RC distractor, and you fell for the bait. It is a statement that's true in general, but not relevant to the argument. Suppose we said that there was no such thing as a "pristine" perfect place for salmon --- suppose even the environments with zero pollution had natural challenges. Well, then, the salmon in those environments, over the centuries, would adapt to those particular conditions and be quite fit, and then if others stray into their unique stream and interbreed with them, it will reduce the fitness of that population.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 193
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 78

Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2012, 22:21
Mike,
Thanks for your kind reply. I am not clear, and I am still confused about both the answer choices.

mikemcgarry wrote:
B is quite wrong because the passage makes very clear --- when a stream is polluted, straying happens, which means dilution happens. The passage describes clearly the straying that resulted from the Mount St. Helen's eruption, and then around line (70) says that the effect of pollution probably would be about the same as what they saw at Mount St. Helen's. When the stream is polluted, the salmon can't use it to spawn, so they stray.



For the first one, as you have stated above, I think that both of us are on the same page : when the stream gets polluted, the polluted stream's salmon population cannot spawn, and hence they have to find other stream to spawn, leading to straying. Isn't this same as saying "preserving without dilution" i.e. the polluted stream's population can be preserved when there is low-level of straying? Now to extend this idea - why do I think that we can preserve the polluted stream's population? It's because in lines 35-40 it's stated that their genes can be preserved. I am still not able to see why B) is incorrect.

I see dear Douvik's point in that "dilution" is not explicitly stated while discussing 'low levels of straying.' I am not sure whether these are grounds to eliminate B. The passage does talk about high-levels of straying, and has explicitly stated that low-levels of straying is better than high-level straying because of the dilution issue. Can't we infer that the dilution doesn't happen in the case of low-level straying. I am not sure about this. It seems logical to me and within the boundaries of the passage.


mikemcgarry wrote:

(E) is a typically GMAT RC distractor, and you fell for the bait. It is a statement that's true in general, but not relevant to the argument. Suppose we said that there was no such thing as a "pristine" perfect place for salmon --- suppose even the environments with zero pollution had natural challenges. Well, then, the salmon in those environments, over the centuries, would adapt to those particular conditions and be quite fit, and then if others stray into their unique stream and interbreed with them, it will reduce the fitness of that population.


For the second one, this is a great 'assumption' question. Let's dissect this further. Conclusion: "Disturbances cause by humans lower the overall fitness of subsequent generation in 'mixed' streams." Premise, as you stated, the salmon in those pristine areas had adaptions particular suited to those areas, which made them quite fit, and along come a bunch of salmon from the polluted stream next door, and they genetically dilute the salmon of that pristine stream, making them less adapted to that unique niche, and hence less fit. I agree 100%. That was my understanding as well. However, I am still not able to see the correctness of C).

No let's negate C - Salmonids in none of the streams benefit from particular local adaptations. In my opinion, this has no effect on the conclusion. The conclusion is about comparing the overall fitness levels between "pristine" population (i.e. native population) and "mixed" population (i.e. native + newly strayed ones). Who cares whether 1% of population benefits from the adaptation or 90% of the native population benefits from the adaptation. We are concerned about the causal link between human activity and the lowering of the overall fitness. It could be possible that the native population is only 1% fit, and the straying would decrease this further down to 0.05%. Do I care about the level of fitness of the native population? No. I am only concerned about the "lowering" of fitness. I am still not clear.

Now let's negate E- (I must admit that while solving this question, I was unsatisfied with all the answer choices and had no option than to choose E) from C and E (50% chance :( ) ) -- I agree that we don't care whether the pristine streams are affected by natural disaster or not. We are only concerned about the link between "human activity" and the lowering of overall Darwinian fitness.



Can you please help me? I am really confused.


Thanks
Voodoo Child
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 64
Schools: Booth '17, CBS '19
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 11

CAT Tests
Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2016, 14:33
Is the word "stream" in this passage and questions refer to habitat?
stream=habitat?
Please comment!!
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3316
Followers: 1129

Kudos [?]: 4962 [0], given: 54

Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2016, 15:24
tae808 wrote:
Is the word "stream" in this passage and questions refer to habitat?
stream=habitat?
Please comment!!

Dear tae808,

I'm happy to respond my friend. :-)

A "habitat" is the environment in which a living thing is designed to live, the place where it naturally thrives. For a deer, the habitat is a forest. For a giraffe, the habitat is the Serengeti. For a salmon, the habitat, for at least part of its life cycle, is a stream. Many things live in a healthy stream, so for these animals, it is a habitat. Does this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2013
Posts: 64
Schools: Booth '17, CBS '19
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 11

CAT Tests
Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2016, 15:39
mikemcgarry wrote:
tae808 wrote:
Is the word "stream" in this passage and questions refer to habitat?
stream=habitat?
Please comment!!

Dear tae808,

I'm happy to respond my friend. :-)

A "habitat" is the environment in which a living thing is designed to live, the place where it naturally thrives. For a deer, the habitat is a forest. For a giraffe, the habitat is the Serengeti. For a salmon, the habitat, for at least part of its life cycle, is a stream. Many things live in a healthy stream, so for these animals, it is a habitat. Does this make sense?

Mike


Thanks for your reply!
I thought salmons are born in the sea and die in the sea. Didn't know that they spend some time in streams.
After reading the passage I thought the streams are mentioned because they move from one point to another...
I really appreciate it!
Re: Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat   [#permalink] 21 Aug 2016, 15:39
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat stormbind 3 17 Feb 2013, 08:08
10 Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat uledssul 11 11 Jul 2012, 23:56
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat msvel2304 0 07 Mar 2012, 05:25
RC - Salmon (short Passage) priyankur_saha@ml.com 6 11 Apr 2009, 05:38
1 Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat marcodonzelli 5 06 Jan 2008, 07:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.