Last visit was: 28 Apr 2024, 22:29 It is currently 28 Apr 2024, 22:29

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
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [4]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Send PM
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Expert Reply
miteshk wrote:
1) But it seems you are reinforcing the same point with different examples. I am not worried about how to apply the concept. I am just thinking why is this so ? Should I just memorize this like a grammar rule?


Hi Mitesh,

The point of using different examples here and explaining them using leading questions was to explain the "why" part. I think you need to keep away your preconceived notions aside for 5 minutes while you read that post; probably, you'll be able to grasp it much better.

If the post still doesn't help, then search for other material on the web to help yourself. You should avoid at all costs remembering CR stuff like grammar rules.
miteshk wrote:
2) Also I tried searching for official examples that displays "X leads to Y" concept.
The CR Question number 33 of Verbal Official Guide (2nd edition) (about Renaissance oil paintings) displays this concept but treats the alternate cause as a weakener.
Conclusion: Gesso causes deterioration
Although the question is about a strengthener, but it rejects option B stating that it shows an alternate cause & hence is a weakener.
Please correct me if I am wrong.


Here's the question:
Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true , most strongly supports the restorers' hypothesis?

A.Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.

B.Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.

C.Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.

D.An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.

E.Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied.

Think what is happening in the passage. Is the passage trying to "explain" the deterioration of paintings? Is it trying to find out what led to deterioration or is it after something else?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
Here's the question:
Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true , most strongly supports the restorers' hypothesis?

A.Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.

B.Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.

C.Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.

D.An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.

E.Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied.

Think what is happening in the passage. Is the passage trying to "explain" the deterioration of paintings? Is it trying to find out what led to deterioration or is it after something else?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Chiranjeev,

As per my understanding, the passage is indeed trying to find out what led to deterioration. Here is what I think the passage is about :

Premise: Renaissance oil paintings deteriorate physically when subjected to climate changes.
Experts are looking over the factors which cause the deterioration.
Oil paint adjusts to climate changes => Oil Paint is not the cause.
Conclusion by the Art Experts: Gesso causes the deterioration.

This looks like a "X causes Y" kind of causality.
I am only concerned with choice B.
Choice B implies that an alternate cause-the wooden panels- could lead to the deterioration and hence the choice weakens the argument. This is even stated in the official explanation.
But this is contrary to the 1st takeaway of the article.
egmat wrote:
TAKE AWAYS

1. “X leads/can lead/will lead to Y” allows the possibility of an alternate route, Z, to reach the effect, Y. Therefore, an option statement presenting an alternate route does not weaken this conclusion type.


Please let me know what is wrong with my interpretation. :?
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Expert Reply
miteshk wrote:
egmat wrote:
Here's the question:
Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true , most strongly supports the restorers' hypothesis?

A.Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.

B.Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.

C.Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.

D.An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.

E.Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied.

Think what is happening in the passage. Is the passage trying to "explain" the deterioration of paintings? Is it trying to find out what led to deterioration or is it after something else?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Chiranjeev,

As per my understanding, the passage is indeed trying to find out what led to deterioration. Here is what I think the passage is about :

Premise: Renaissance oil paintings deteriorate physically when subjected to climate changes.
Experts are looking over the factors which cause the deterioration.
Oil paint adjusts to climate changes => Oil Paint is not the cause.
Conclusion by the Art Experts: Gesso causes the deterioration.

This looks like a "X causes Y" kind of causality.
I am only concerned with choice B.
Choice B implies that an alternate cause-the wooden panels- could lead to the deterioration and hence the choice weakens the argument. This is even stated in the official explanation.
But this is contrary to the 1st takeaway of the article.
egmat wrote:
TAKE AWAYS

1. “X leads/can lead/will lead to Y” allows the possibility of an alternate route, Z, to reach the effect, Y. Therefore, an option statement presenting an alternate route does not weaken this conclusion type.


Please let me know what is wrong with my interpretation. :?


Hi Mitesh,

I understand your concern. Option B is indeed a weakener in this passage. Actually, a very similar doubt has been asked by 12bhang on this thread. I would suggest that you read my response to him. The direct link to my post is:

alternate-cause-a-weakener-or-not-155034.html#p1251835

Let me know if you are still not clear.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
egmat wrote:

Hi Mitesh,

I understand your concern. Option B is indeed a weakener in this passage. Actually, a very similar doubt has been asked by 12bhang on this thread. I would suggest that you read my response to him. The direct link to my post is:

alternate-cause-a-weakener-or-not-155034.html#p1251835

Let me know if you are still not clear.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Chiranjeev,
Your discussion with 12bhang about marital relationships pointed out that Alternate cause was still not a weakener in that case. While in this case it is considered a weakener.
Still unclear :(
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Awesome :)
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Expert Reply
miteshk wrote:
egmat wrote:

Hi Mitesh,

I understand your concern. Option B is indeed a weakener in this passage. Actually, a very similar doubt has been asked by 12bhang on this thread. I would suggest that you read my response to him. The direct link to my post is:

alternate-cause-a-weakener-or-not-155034.html#p1251835

Let me know if you are still not clear.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Chiranjeev,
Your discussion with 12bhang about marital relationships pointed out that Alternate cause was still not a weakener in that case. While in this case it is considered a weakener.
Still unclear :(


Hi Mitesh,

I understand your concern. Frankly, where we are heading is a very nuanced understanding of causal arguments (basically, causality in assumptions vs causality in conclusion) and I can't think of a shortcut to explain it to you. I'll need to write a full length article on it to give any satisfactory response to your query. Any less than that will not clear all doubts.

However, these days are running quite busy for me but sooner than later, I will bring up an article on this thing and will surely intimate you once I do that.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT Date: 01-20-2013
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
2. A study of marital relationships in which one partner's sleeping and waking cycles differ from those of other partner reveals that such couples share fewer activities with each other and have more violent arguments than do couples in a relationship in which both partners follow the same sleeping and waking patterns . Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Firstly the passage is not saying that the partners who follow the same sleeping and waking partners NEVER indulge in arguments that can jeopardize marriage. So it cant be a right answer
Secondly, how come something that happens outside a group under study be an ALTERNATE CAUSE for high occurrence of the same activity seen inside the group(partners with similar sleeping and waking patterns)?

Can you please explain?
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Gsam2013 wrote:
2. A study of marital relationships in which one partner's sleeping and waking cycles differ from those of other partner reveals that such couples share fewer activities with each other and have more violent arguments than do couples in a relationship in which both partners follow the same sleeping and waking patterns . Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Firstly the passage is not saying that the partners who follow the same sleeping and waking partners NEVER indulge in arguments that can jeopardize marriage. So it cant be a right answer
Secondly, how come something that happens outside a group under study be an ALTERNATE CAUSE for high occurrence of the same activity seen inside the group(partners with similar sleeping and waking patterns)?

Can you please explain?


Hi,

You are correct. Option A can be rejected on either of the two grounds mentioned by you.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 538 [0]
Given Kudos: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Almost all of us would have heard of causal arguments and [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
Hi Skamal7 and Vikas,


In terms of X and Y, the conclusion says that X will lead to Y (X: removal of tariffs, Y: urban unemployment).Option E weakens this by indicating that by not doing anything (i.e. with the status quo of high tariffs), we'll have more urban employment. This indicates that X will probably lead to reduction in Y, than increase in Y.
(Here, Y is not an event which will happen or not happen. It is a continuous figure which may increase or decrease).



Hi Chiranjeev,

I think it should be "we will have more urban unemployment".

Thanks.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Expert Reply
I think this official question may also add value to this thread. It is from GMAT Paper Tests.

Let's see how many get this right :)

Dutch elm disease, which is caused by the fungus C. ulmi spread by adult scolytid beetles, has already destroyed 70 percent of the elms in Greenwood Forest. Another naturally occurring fungus, P. oblonga, kills larvae of the scolytid beetle. Forest rangers plan to introduce P. oblonga into Greenwood Forest in order to save the remaining mature elms.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the plan’s prospects for success?

(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.

-Chiranjeev
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 538 [0]
Given Kudos: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
I think this official question may also add value to this thread. It is from GMAT Paper Tests.

Let's see how many get this right :)

Dutch elm disease, which is caused by the fungus C. ulmi spread by adult scolytid beetles, has already destroyed 70 percent of the elms in Greenwood Forest. Another naturally occurring fungus, P. oblonga, kills larvae of the scolytid beetle. Forest rangers plan to introduce P. oblonga into Greenwood Forest in order to save the remaining mature elms.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the plan’s prospects for success?

(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.

-Chiranjeev


Here is my take on it.

Analysis:
Dutch elm disease: cause by fungus C. Ulmi residing in adult Scolytid beetles.
Naturally occurring fungus, P. Oblonga, can stop the infestation of Scolytid beetles and hence save elm trees.

Question stem:
What weakens the plan?

Prethinking:
If some how introduction of new fungus, P. Oblonga, harms the trees differently there by reducing the count of elm, the plan would fail.
Or
If some how the introduction of the new fungus, P. Oblonga, does not make a difference or bring any considerable effect.

POE/ Answer analysis:
(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
- This does not relate to Fungus, P. Oblonga and its effect.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
Again irrelevant. Does not correlate to the plans of Forest Rangers.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
Does not weaken the plan. Infact gives kinda a credibility to Ranger's thought processes.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
This is it. This weakens the plan. Forest Rangers should have introduced fungus, P. Oblonga, way earlier. Nothing can be done, now. Plan might not work.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.
Again irrelevant.


Chiranjeev: What do you think? :)
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [0]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Expert Reply
vabhs192003 wrote:
egmat wrote:
I think this official question may also add value to this thread. It is from GMAT Paper Tests.

Let's see how many get this right :)

Dutch elm disease, which is caused by the fungus C. ulmi spread by adult scolytid beetles, has already destroyed 70 percent of the elms in Greenwood Forest. Another naturally occurring fungus, P. oblonga, kills larvae of the scolytid beetle. Forest rangers plan to introduce P. oblonga into Greenwood Forest in order to save the remaining mature elms.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the plan’s prospects for success?

(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.

-Chiranjeev


Here is my take on it.

Analysis:
Dutch elm disease: cause by fungus C. Ulmi residing in adult Scolytid beetles.
Naturally occurring fungus, P. Oblonga, can stop the infestation of Scolytid beetles and hence save elm trees.

Question stem:
What weakens the plan?

Prethinking:
If some how introduction of new fungus, P. Oblonga, harms the trees differently there by reducing the count of elm, the plan would fail.
Or
If some how the introduction of the new fungus, P. Oblonga, does not make a difference or bring any considerable effect.

POE/ Answer analysis:
(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
- This does not relate to Fungus, P. Oblonga and its effect.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
Again irrelevant. Does not correlate to the plans of Forest Rangers.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
Does not weaken the plan. Infact gives kinda a credibility to Ranger's thought processes.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
This is it. This weakens the plan. Forest Rangers should have introduced fungus, P. Oblonga, way earlier. Nothing can be done, now. Plan might not work.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.
Again irrelevant.


Chiranjeev: What do you think? :)


Very good job at the analysis. :) Even though I am tempted to tell the correct answer, I think I'll wait for a couple of more responses :)

-Chiranjeev
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4349
Own Kudos [?]: 30813 [1]
Given Kudos: 637
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
vabhs192003 wrote:
egmat wrote:
I think this official question may also add value to this thread. It is from GMAT Paper Tests.

Let's see how many get this right :)

Dutch elm disease, which is caused by the fungus C. ulmi spread by adult scolytid beetles, has already destroyed 70 percent of the elms in Greenwood Forest. Another naturally occurring fungus, P. oblonga, kills larvae of the scolytid beetle. Forest rangers plan to introduce P. oblonga into Greenwood Forest in order to save the remaining mature elms.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the plan’s prospects for success?

(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.

-Chiranjeev


Here is my take on it.

Analysis:
Dutch elm disease: cause by fungus C. Ulmi residing in adult Scolytid beetles.
Naturally occurring fungus, P. Oblonga, can stop the infestation of Scolytid beetles and hence save elm trees.

Question stem:
What weakens the plan?

Prethinking:
If some how introduction of new fungus, P. Oblonga, harms the trees differently there by reducing the count of elm, the plan would fail.
Or
If some how the introduction of the new fungus, P. Oblonga, does not make a difference or bring any considerable effect.

POE/ Answer analysis:
(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
- This does not relate to Fungus, P. Oblonga and its effect.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
Again irrelevant. Does not correlate to the plans of Forest Rangers.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
Does not weaken the plan. Infact gives kinda a credibility to Ranger's thought processes.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
This is it. This weakens the plan. Forest Rangers should have introduced fungus, P. Oblonga, way earlier. Nothing can be done, now. Plan might not work.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.
Again irrelevant.


Chiranjeev: What do you think? :)


You are absolutely correct. The correct option is D. Good job :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 538 [0]
Given Kudos: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
vabhs192003 wrote:
egmat wrote:
I think this official question may also add value to this thread. It is from GMAT Paper Tests.

Let's see how many get this right :)

Dutch elm disease, which is caused by the fungus C. ulmi spread by adult scolytid beetles, has already destroyed 70 percent of the elms in Greenwood Forest. Another naturally occurring fungus, P. oblonga, kills larvae of the scolytid beetle. Forest rangers plan to introduce P. oblonga into Greenwood Forest in order to save the remaining mature elms.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the plan’s prospects for success?

(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.

-Chiranjeev


Here is my take on it.

Analysis:
Dutch elm disease: cause by fungus C. Ulmi residing in adult Scolytid beetles.
Naturally occurring fungus, P. Oblonga, can stop the infestation of Scolytid beetles and hence save elm trees.

Question stem:
What weakens the plan?

Prethinking:
If some how introduction of new fungus, P. Oblonga, harms the trees differently there by reducing the count of elm, the plan would fail.
Or
If some how the introduction of the new fungus, P. Oblonga, does not make a difference or bring any considerable effect.

POE/ Answer analysis:
(A) During the last year, the scolytid beetle population in Greenwood Forest has decreased by 30 percent because of cold-weather conditions.
- This does not relate to Fungus, P. Oblonga and its effect.
(B) Dutch elm disease cannot be abated by introducing chemical compounds used to arrest the diseases of many other species of tree.
Again irrelevant. Does not correlate to the plans of Forest Rangers.
(C) Introduction of P. oblonga saved elm trees in neighboring Gatemar and Lavemont forests.
Does not weaken the plan. Infact gives kinda a credibility to Ranger's thought processes.
(D) For P. oblonga to control scolytid beetles successfully, it must be established in a forest prior to the beetle infestation.
This is it. This weakens the plan. Forest Rangers should have introduced fungus, P. Oblonga, way earlier. Nothing can be done, now. Plan might not work.
(E) Greenwood Forest has lost many maple trees because of a fungus infection.
Again irrelevant.


Chiranjeev: What do you think? :)


You are absolutely correct. The correct option is D. Good job :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


Waiting for a new challenge...Chiranjeev, when is the next one coming? :)

-Vaibhav
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
I was doing OG13 questions when I got confused with OG13 Q25 & 37(both weaken questions). After reading this article, all my doubts vanished & I was able to answer & understand those questions quickly. :-D
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 180 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Concentration: Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.74
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
Found this article incredibly helpful and decided to catch the next alternate cause beauty i found. Lo and behold for all you CR-soon-to-be-champs. This is an official GMAT prep question that I found quite interesting. The question itself is quite straightforward, but I thought that I'd add it to this thread to help everyone strengthen this concept. Thanks e-gmat. Great tip!

In the late 1980’s, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean began to
decline. Of the two plausible explanations for the decline—increased predation by killer
whales or disease—disease is the more likely. After all, a concurrent sharp decline in
the populations of seals and sea lions was almost certainly caused by a pollutionrelated
disease, which could have spread to sea otters, whereas the population of killer
whales did not change noticeably

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

A. Killer whales in the North Pacific usually prey on seals and sea lions but will,
when this food source is scarce, seek out other prey.

B. There is no indication that substantial numbers of sea otters migrated to other
locations from the North Pacific in the 1980’s.

C. Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980’s, sea otters were absent
from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.

D. Following the decline in the population of the sea otters, there was an increase
in the population of sea urchins, which are sea otters’ main food source.

E. The North Pacific populations of seals and sea lions cover a wider geographic
area than does the population of sea otters

As usual, please provide reasoning for why each option is correct / incorrect.

Cheers!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Status:Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Posts: 337
Own Kudos [?]: 1900 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: United States (DE)
GPA: 3.32
WE:Information Technology (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
miteshk wrote:
1) But it seems you are reinforcing the same point with different examples. I am not worried about how to apply the concept. I am just thinking why is this so ? Should I just memorize this like a grammar rule?


Hi Mitesh,

The point of using different examples here and explaining them using leading questions was to explain the "why" part. I think you need to keep away your preconceived notions aside for 5 minutes while you read that post; probably, you'll be able to grasp it much better.

If the post still doesn't help, then search for other material on the web to help yourself. You should avoid at all costs remembering CR stuff like grammar rules.
miteshk wrote:
2) Also I tried searching for official examples that displays "X leads to Y" concept.
The CR Question number 33 of Verbal Official Guide (2nd edition) (about Renaissance oil paintings) displays this concept but treats the alternate cause as a weakener.
Conclusion: Gesso causes deterioration
Although the question is about a strengthener, but it rejects option B stating that it shows an alternate cause & hence is a weakener.
Please correct me if I am wrong.


Here's the question:
Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true , most strongly supports the restorers' hypothesis?

A.Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.

B.Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.

C.Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.

D.An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.

E.Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied.

Think what is happening in the passage. Is the passage trying to "explain" the deterioration of paintings? Is it trying to find out what led to deterioration or is it after something else?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev



Friends,

This particular question is also discussed under this thread art-restorers-who-have-been-studying-161733.html#p1279149
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Alternate Cause - A weakener or not [#permalink]
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
13966 posts

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