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

 It is currently 26 Sep 2016, 00:54

### 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

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

# Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [3] , given: 11

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2012, 09:35
3
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (02:21) correct 30% (01:31) wrong based on 470 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 4

Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

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: 44
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 6

Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

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.
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 11

Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

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: 44
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 6

Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

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: 6907
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1989

Kudos [?]: 12354 [5] , given: 221

Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2012, 22:42
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

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

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Manager Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 201 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 22 Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink] ### Show Tags 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: 464 Concentration: Marketing, Finance GMAT 1: Q V0 GPA: 3.23 Followers: 25 Kudos [?]: 394 [0], given: 11 Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink] ### Show Tags 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 _________________ Impossible is nothing to God. GMAT Club Legend Joined: 01 Oct 2013 Posts: 9780 Followers: 838 Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0 Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink] ### Show Tags 08 May 2014, 20:54 Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot! Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos). Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email. GMAT Club Legend Joined: 01 Oct 2013 Posts: 9780 Followers: 838 Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0 Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink] ### Show Tags 31 May 2015, 03:12 Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot! Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos). Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email. Senior Manager Joined: 21 May 2015 Posts: 275 Concentration: Operations, Strategy GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41 Followers: 5 Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 57 Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink] ### Show Tags 31 May 2015, 05:01 C Conclusion - The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife Premises - Use of virus; chance of virus affecting the bilby Weaken - That govt plan would not increase the threat to bilby C states that rabbits are eating away bilby food source and thus eliminating rabbits can increase bilby population - this is best choice _________________ Apoorv I realize that i cannot change the world....But i can play a part Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 6907 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1989 Kudos [?]: 12354 [0], given: 221 Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth [#permalink] ### Show Tags 11 May 2016, 20:47 Expert's post 2 This post was BOOKMARKED 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. Responding to a pm: Between (A) and (C): Premises: - Rabbits are a menace to agriculture. - The government proposes to use a virus to control their population. - However, the virus could infect the bilby. 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 to wildlife. A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies. The conclusion clearly says "...increase the threat to native wildlife". The author is worried about the threat to wildlife. (A) tells us that the virus will be less of a threat to domestic animals. The author is not worried about domestic animals at all. His concern is only wildlife. (A) doesn't weaken his conclusion that the plan will not threaten WILDLIFE. C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed. (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. Answer (C) _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth   [#permalink] 11 May 2016, 20:47
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Rabbits were introduced to Tambor Island in the nineteenth century. 3 30 Aug 2016, 14:46
Suitable introducation 1 17 Jul 2011, 01:21
1 Two different cages of rabbits were given injections of mild 12 15 Sep 2010, 20:22
1 Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of 4 25 Jul 2008, 10:36
1 The government of Penglai, an isolated island, proposed 11 28 Jun 2007, 19:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by