Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 02:14

It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 02:14

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 16
Sneak Peek: $200 Off GMAT Prep
12:00 PM EDT
-
11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 3: By 1970, rampant

1 2 3 4

ledzep10

Joined: 13 May 2025

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 104

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 49

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q87 V81 DI78 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q87 V81 DI78 Verified score

Posts: 104

Kudos: 59

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 05:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

Main Conclusion: Even with whaling taking place, the HW population must have increased considerably during the 2010s.

In order to weaken this conclusion, if we find another reason for more reports of whale sightings we can say that it's not the HW population increase that has led to the sightings but rather this other reason.

A. The products derived from HW is out of scope.

B. Who could conduct whaling does not have an impact on the conclusion.

C. An increase in the HW sightings in coastal regions strengthens the conclusion rather than weakening it.

D. This is the answer we are looking for. With greater number of ships in the ocean,rather than the reports identifying an increase in whale population, the reports could have multiple instances of spotting the same whale/whales hence weakening the conclusion of an increase in the population.

E. This option also strengthens the argument.

Answer D

Bunuel

By 1970, rampant whaling had reduced the population of humpback whales to ten percent of its original size. In response, a worldwide moratorium on whaling was enacted. By 2009, the population had largely recovered, and the moratorium was eased in a few restricted areas. During the 2010s, reports of ships encountering humpback whales on the open increased in comparison with the reports in the 2000s. Therefore, despite whatever whaling took place, the humpback whale population must have increased considerably during the 2010s.

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

A. Throughout the 2010s, the sale of products derived from humpback whales was more strictly regulated than whaling was.

B. The whaling restrictions applied to both private and government whalers.

C. Humpback whale sightings in coastal regions increased in number, greatly, during the 2010s.

D. There were significantly greater number of ships in the sea in the 2010s than in the 2000s.

E. Most humpback whale sightings on the open sea in the 2010s occurred in regions where there were very few ships.

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

crimson_king

Joined: 21 Dec 2023

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 152

Own Kudos:

156

Given Kudos: 113

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 152

Kudos: 156

18 Dec 2025, 05:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

On analyzing the options one by one,

A: Talks about regulation of whale products, not whale population or ship sightings → does not weaken. Eliminate

B: Clarifies who the restrictions applied to, but doesn’t affect sightings or population inference → does not weaken. Eliminate

C: More coastal sightings support the idea of more whales & thus strengthens, not weakens. Eliminate

D: More ships in the 2010s means more chances to see whales, even without population growth → weakens.Keep

E: Sightings in low-ship areas don’t rule out increased overall ship traffic → does not strongly weaken. Eliminate

The correct answer is option D

redandme21

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 97

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 97

Kudos: 87

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 06:16

Kudos

Bookmarks

To weaken the argument, we want an alternative explanation for the increased encounters that does not require population growth.

A Regulatory differences between product sales and whaling do not address encounter frequency.

B It's irrelevant to encounter data. Merely restates the scope of whaling restrictions.

C Increased coastal sightings would tend to support, not weaken, population growth.

D Correct. More ships at sea would naturally lead to more encounters even if the whale population stayed the same.

E This suggests whales were seen where ships were few, which could strengthen the argument.

IMO D

sanjitscorps18

Joined: 26 Jan 2019

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

739

[1]

Given Kudos: 130

Location: India

Schools: IMD'26

Products:

Schools: IMD'26

Posts: 723

Kudos: 739

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 06:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

A -> This comparison does not weaken the argument.
B -> This is an elaboration of the premise. Doesn't weaken
C -> The passage uses evidence of ship sightings of whales, not the coastal regions and also strengthens.
D -> This is a possible weakener as different ships may have encountered the same whale populations.
E -> This suggests that whales preferred areas not visited by ship much. In fact, this is a mild strengthener as well.

Option D

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 06:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument is that humpback whale population must have increased considerably during the 2010s because reports of ship encounters with humpbacks increased in the 2010s compared to 2000s.

A It's irrelevant to reports of encounters.

B It's irrelevant to conclusion about population increase in 2010s based on sightings.

C It might actually support the idea of more whales, not weaken.

D Right answer. This directly weakens. More ships could cause more reports even if whale population did not increase considerably during 2010s.

E If sightings in regions with few ships increased, that could imply whales moved there, not necessarily increased population overall.

Answer D

SafSin28

Joined: 16 Aug 2022

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 84

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 60

Posts: 84

Kudos: 67

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 06:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

By 1970, rampant whaling had reduced the population of humpback whales to ten percent of its original size. In response, a worldwide moratorium on whaling was enacted.---> Background info.

By 2009, the population had largely recovered, and the moratorium was eased in a few restricted areas. ---> A premise

During the 2010s, reports of ships encountering humpback whales on the open increased in comparison with the reports in the 2000s. --> a premise

Therefore, despite whatever whaling took place, the humpback whale population must have increased considerably during the 2010s.----> conclusion

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?----> QS: Weaken

This argument already assumed "Encountering more whales = More whales are present in the sea". If we show a reason to doubt this, that will be an answer.

A. Throughout the 2010s, the sale of products derived from humpback whales was more strictly regulated than whaling was.---> Descriptive of what happened in 2010. Off context. OUT.

B. The whaling restrictions applied to both private and government whalers.---> We do not care of whether restrictions apply or not. OUT

C. Humpback whale sightings in coastal regions increased in number, greatly, during the 2010s.---> A descriptive of a conclusuon. OUT.

D. There were significantly greater number of ships in the sea in the 2010s than in the 2000s.----> Ohh in this case one whale more likely to be encountered in the reports. Keep it.

E. Most humpback whale sightings on the open sea in the 2010s occurred in regions where there were very few ships. ---> A descriptive of the conclusion. OUT

So D is right

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 07:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument concludes that the increase in reports of ship encounters with humpback whales during the 2010s shows that the whale population must have increased considerably in that decade.

A It has no direct connection to population size or encounter frequency, so it does not weaken the argument.

B It gives no information about whale population changes or encounter rates, so it is irrelevant.

C More sightings near shore suggest there may actually be more whales, which would support the conclusion rather than weaken it.

D If ship traffic increased, then ships would naturally report more encounters with whales, even if the number of whales stayed the same. Correct answer.

E Seeing many whales in areas with little ship traffic suggests the whale population really did increase, which would strengthen the argument.

The answer is D

hershehy

Joined: 28 Jul 2025

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 24

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 24

Kudos: 18

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 07:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

IMO D

I mean the whole argument hinges on population growth from more ship and whale encounters.
If there were many more ships in the 2010s, then increased encounters could occur even with the same whale population.

why i think others are wromng?

A. Irrelevant. Stricter regulation of whale products does not explain why sightings increased. It neither challenges the link between sightings and population nor offers an alternative cause.

B. Out of scope, no? Whether restrictions applied to private or government whalers is irrelevant to the inference being made. The argument is not about who whaled, but about population change inferred from sightings.

C. Strenghtner if anything, More coastal sightings actually supports the idea that the population increased.

E. If sightings occurred where few ships operate, that makes each encounter more significant, reinforcing the population-increase inference rather than undermining it.

firefox300

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 07:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument assumes that more encounters mean more whales, but it does not consider changes in human activity or observation rates.

A Sale of whale products more strictly regulated than whaling. It's irrelevant to number of sightings.

B Whaling restrictions applied to both private and government whalers. It's irrelevant.

C Whale sightings in coastal regions increased greatly. It could actually support the argument.

D CORRECT. This directly offers an alternative explanation. More ships mean more opportunities for sightings, even if whale population stayed the same.

E If regions with few ships saw more sightings, maybe whales actually did increase there. It could strengthen the argument.

The correct answer is D

Gmat860sanskar

Joined: 05 May 2023

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 210

Own Kudos:

111

[1]

Given Kudos: 78

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 210

Kudos: 111

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 07:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

So here premise is that reports of ship encountering the whales increased in 2010's

Here we've to find a weakener

so here assumption is that there is no other reason for increase in report of whales except that whale population is actually increased.

We need answer which give us the alternate explanation for this

D option exactly does that - it tell us that there are greater number of ship now, so that's why more people are reporting.

D is the correct option

givemethescore

Joined: 29 Nov 2025

Last visit: 02 Jan 2026

Posts: 10

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 11

Posts: 10

Kudos: 10

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 08:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

Choose D because the more ships in the area, the higher the chance the ship will see the whale, and this will lead to a higher number in the report. In this case, it doesn't reflect the actual number exiting the whale at the time that the argument mentions.

kapoora10

Joined: 13 Jul 2024

Last visit: 12 Apr 2026

Posts: 109

Own Kudos:

[2]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Concentration: Real Estate, Sustainability

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q88 V74 DI84 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 8.03

WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Management)

Products:

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 109

Kudos: 95

[2]

18 Dec 2025, 08:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

Let's see all the statements one by one:

A => Regulations on whale products should have no influence on sightings. Eliminate.
B= > Who does the whaling is irrelevant, what is relevant is the number of such phenomenon. Eliminate.
C=> This strengthens as it tells more sightings, not weakens.
D=> If there were more ships than the probability of people encountering whales would naturally rise. Keep for now
E=>Even if most of the whales were sighted in areas where there were few ships, that does not prove that the population did not increase. It actually tells that even with few ships such sightings happened. Eliminate.

My Answer => D