|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
BSchool Thread Master
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[1] , given: 11
|
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink]
 09 Oct 2012, 09:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
68% (02:25) correct
31% (01:36) wrong based on 2 sessions
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies. B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits. C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed. D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits. E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby. Plz discuss each answer choice.
_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 4
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]
09 Oct 2012, 09:42
ankit0411 wrote: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
Plz discuss each answer choice. Conclusion : The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife. Anything that weakens the conclusion is our answer. A: out of scope no discussion regarding domestic animals b: has no relation with our conclusion or the virus. Out of scope c: Correct. AS this weakens the conclusion. This states overgrazing is in ANYCASE killing bilbies. If we take chance in which we will kill rabbits but bilbies MIGHT also get infected, it will NOT increase threat to wildlife. Hence Weaken the conc. d:No relation in this case so out of scope e:this strengthens the conc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Posts: 35
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]
09 Oct 2012, 12:12
ankit0411 wrote: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
-- This option is still showing negative effect on Wildlife. Therefore, Incorrect
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
--- This is neutral. This show neither of the effects on agriculture or wildlife.Therefore, Incorrect
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
--- This shows that plan has positive effect on native wildlife. Therefore, Correct
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
--- This is stated in premise. Therefore, Incorrect
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
--- This is still showing the negative effect on wildlife.
Plz discuss each answer choice. Premise - 1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture 2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby Conclusion - 1) Plan will have positive effect on agriculture 2) Plan will have negative effect on native wildlife. Approach - We need to find an option which will show that 1) either plan will have negative effect on agriculture 2) or plan will have positive effect on agriculture. OR BOTH. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSchool Thread Master
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 11
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]
09 Oct 2012, 20:22
anukrati wrote: ankit0411 wrote: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
-- This option is still showing negative effect on Wildlife. Therefore, Incorrect
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
--- This is neutral. This show neither of the effects on agriculture or wildlife.Therefore, Incorrect
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
--- This shows that plan has positive effect on native wildlife. Therefore, Correct
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
--- This is stated in premise. Therefore, Incorrect
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
--- This is still showing the negative effect on wildlife.
Plz discuss each answer choice. Premise - 1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture 2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby Conclusion - 1) Plan will have positive effect on agriculture 2) Plan will have negative effect on native wildlife. Approach - We need to find an option which will show that 1) either plan will have negative effect on agriculture 2) or plan will have positive effect on agriculture. OR BOTH. Hope this helps. I don't think option C states that the plan will have a positive effect, I think the rabbits are already having a negative effect on the native marsupial, and hence gives us a reason that the virus will not have worsen this situation further.
_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Posts: 35
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]
09 Oct 2012, 20:48
ankit0411 wrote: anukrati wrote: ankit0411 wrote: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
-- This option is still showing negative effect on Wildlife. Therefore, Incorrect
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
--- This is neutral. This show neither of the effects on agriculture or wildlife.Therefore, Incorrect
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
--- This shows that plan has positive effect on native wildlife. Therefore, Correct
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
--- This is stated in premise. Therefore, Incorrect
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
--- This is still showing the negative effect on wildlife.
Plz discuss each answer choice. Premise - 1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture 2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby Conclusion - 1) Plan will have positive effect on agriculture 2) Plan will have negative effect on native wildlife. Approach - We need to find an option which will show that 1) either plan will have negative effect on agriculture 2) or plan will have positive effect on agriculture. OR BOTH. Hope this helps. I don't think option C states that the plan will have a positive effect, I think the rabbits are already having a negative effect on the native marsupial, and hence gives us a reason that the virus will not have worsen this situation further. By Positive effect I dont mean literally positive effect. When you are solving CR question. You need to find logic which suits best for you and how you can deduce the same. For me positive effect was nothing but ( any effect that shows no negative effect on bilbies). As in C, it is stated that since rabbit are taking away the plant on which bilbies feed, so by killing rabbit bilbies are getting their food back. So it is in a way showing reverse of negative effect on bilbies. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 3111
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 571
Kudos [?]:
2010
[1] , given: 92
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]
09 Oct 2012, 22:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
ankit0411 wrote: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
Plz discuss each answer choice. To weaken, we first need to find the conclusion. Conclusion: The plan may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife. Notice here that the author says 'may serve the interests' so he is not very particular about the plan serving the interests of agriculture. But he says that it will 'clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. If we want to weaken the conclusion, we should try to weaken 'will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. We need to prove that the plan 'may not increase' the threat. Notice that none of the options other than (C) are relevant. (A) talks about comparison between domestic and wildlife. (B) and (D) don't talk about wildlife. (E) says there is no other way which is irrelevant. (C) says that rabbits are endangering bilbies (by reducing their food). The plan will reduce the rabbit population which will be good for the bilbies. It might infect bilbies too which will be bad for the bilbies. We don't know what the overall effect will be. Hence, we can say that the plan 'may not increase the threat or it may'. We have cast a shade of doubt on the conclusion which was 'the plan will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. This is what we set out to do.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
Veritas Prep Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 22
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink]
08 Nov 2012, 03:42
The hint lies in the last sentence.
"The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife"
Agriculture is given the priority over the threat to native wildlife.
Choice C - Best pick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 468
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
75
[0], given: 11
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink]
07 Jan 2013, 07:17
ankit0411 wrote: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
Plz discuss each answer choice. Kill rabbits with virus - bad for bilbies - threat to native wildlife A. Wildlife not domestic animals... Out of scope! B. strengthener... C. Virus means more food for bilbies... Weakener D. How bout bilbies? Does nothing to weaken E. doesn't tackle the issue of whether it is really or not really a threat Answer: C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth
[#permalink]
07 Jan 2013, 07:17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
