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

 It is currently 18 Apr 2014, 07:48

### 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

# This got me down. A real great CR for me. Lobsters and other

Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Followers: 3

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

This got me down. A real great CR for me. Lobsters and other [#permalink]  12 Jul 2008, 00:03
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
This got me down.
A real great CR for me.

Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 552
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  12 Jul 2008, 00:22
i thought about 2 minutes and then the reaosn came out..

Its E, i may sound rude to Anumal rights activists ... but who cares if Lobesters are harmed or not .... if they have gill infections and we eat lobseters, we'll get sick .... so there is a point in dumping sewage in open ocean ....
SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1893
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 32

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  12 Jul 2008, 00:33
This is a tough question. I'm not sure I found one that really does what the question asks.

I have no idea. LOL

huntgmat wrote:
This got me down.
A real great CR for me.

Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Assumptions:
1) Lobsters caught in the harbor live/breed in the harbor. If they live in the open ocean and walk to the harbor to get caught, then the dumping out in the ocean would certainly be pointless, but not for the reasons mentioned by the stem.
2) Gill Diseases take a long time to make a lobster sick
3) Something in the sewege is causing the sickness (decent assumption, but still an assumption)

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
This actually supports the conclusion. It says that something else is equally harmful meaning that the lobsters will still get infected even if the sewage is sent kilometers out into the ocean.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
At first this seems like the right answer because it talks about lobsters living longer, but then I realized it discusses lobsters in the open ocean, not where obsters are caught. Kind of out of scope.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
This has to do with the number of lobsters born/spawned(?), not how long they live.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
Huh? Does this even matter? Where does the stem say anything about detecting the diseases?
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.
This actually supports the reasoning. The entire passage would be unnecessary if this were not true.

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1893
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 32

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  12 Jul 2008, 00:37
You're right. I agree with your reasoning. It's a very simple answer and I know I'm not used to looking for simple answers. I guess we should ask ourselves this question:

What answer makes it worthwhile to get rid of the sewage that (as the stem says) causes gill diseases?

If people get sick from eating lobster that has gill diseases due to sewage, then it is not pointless (as the conclusion states) to dump the sewage farther out into the ocean.

This is one of those questions for which the answer was sitting right in front of us.

durgesh79 wrote:
i thought about 2 minutes and then the reaosn came out..

Its E, i may sound rude to Anumal rights activists ... but who cares if Lobesters are harmed or not .... if they have gill infections and we eat lobseters, we'll get sick .... so there is a point in dumping sewage in open ocean ....

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Followers: 3

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

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  12 Jul 2008, 23:49
Good JOB
OA E
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1378
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 130 [1] , given: 10

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  14 Jul 2008, 12:25
1
KUDOS
huntgmat wrote:
This got me down.
A real great CR for me.

Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

For a change I did not find this CR difficult

Premise :Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore.
COnclusion:the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases

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

humans get gill diseases from lobsters grown in sewage waters. proposal -reduce pollution becasue losbsters don't live long enough.

Assumption - Lobsters die or eaten before they are affected by the disease. So they cannot pass on to humans.

E weakens that assumption.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 277
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  14 Jul 2008, 12:32
It is E,

Obvious that lobsters need not be harmed by contamination, but that contamination when consumed by humans will harm them. So contamination must stop.
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 267
Location: nj
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 2

Re: CR : Lobsters [#permalink]  14 Jul 2008, 18:59

why A is wrong here.

it is said that the main point is to reroute the sewage water so that water doesnt get polluted.

and A says that even if the water is rerouted , lobsters will get infected because of the other pollutants in water so it is pointless to reroute water. hence it is directly attacking the conclusion.
Re: CR : Lobsters   [#permalink] 14 Jul 2008, 18:59
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Another one that got me.. 4 29 Jul 2006, 15:57
CR Help me on this 7 08 Jan 2007, 07:45
help me with CR~~ 7 09 Apr 2007, 04:03
CR is killing me 5 14 Aug 2007, 00:10
2 To all the schools that turned me down 12 31 Mar 2009, 21:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by