It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 18:51

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

A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 105 [3], given: 1

A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Mar 2009, 18:24
3
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

75% (01:32) correct 25% (01:41) wrong based on 211 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can be justifiably blamed on legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals. Maine’s population of harbor seals is now double the level existing before production was initiated, and these seals are known to eat both fish and lobsters.

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

(A) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both.

(B) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch.

(C) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine’s coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy.

(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.

(E) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 105 [3], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1878

Kudos [?]: 1443 [1], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg

Show Tags

29 Mar 2009, 23:25
1
KUDOS
milind1979 wrote:
A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can be justifiably blamed on legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals. Maine’s population of harbor seals is now double the level existing before production was initiated, and these seals are known to eat both fish and lobsters.

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

(A) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both.

(B) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch.

(C) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine’s coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy.

(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.

(E) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock.

E is the best

E says the decline in lobster catches is NOT affected by "legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals"
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1443 [1], given: 1

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 872

Kudos [?]: 860 [1], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014

Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 00:23
1
KUDOS
Agree with E.

Kudos [?]: 860 [1], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 133

Kudos [?]: 35 [1], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Apr 2009, 20:25
1
KUDOS
Economist wrote:
Agree with E.

Agree with E)....but only question I have is it mentioned 1970 but argument says decline happened since 1980..but I think we can still say trend is downward from 1970 itself.

Kudos [?]: 35 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 800

Kudos [?]: 86 [1], given: 0

Show Tags

16 Apr 2009, 15:10
1
KUDOS
E

Kudos [?]: 86 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 238

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

Show Tags

16 Apr 2009, 19:16
1
KUDOS
Agree with E.

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 347 [1], given: 2

Location: nj

Show Tags

17 Apr 2009, 09:47
1
KUDOS
E for me.

Kudos [?]: 347 [1], given: 2

Intern
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1

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

Show Tags

24 Apr 2009, 05:29
patedhav wrote:
Economist wrote:
Agree with E.

Agree with E)....but only question I have is it mentioned 1970 but argument says decline happened since 1980..but I think we can still say trend is downward from 1970 itself.

True. Also the focus is on removal of the mature lobster population which was capable of reproduction. Thus it provides an explanation.

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

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 8

Show Tags

28 Oct 2009, 02:00
E it is. The decline in the lobster population was not due to the seal protection policy but the catch of too much reproductive stock of lobsters

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 8

Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 121

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 12

Show Tags

28 Oct 2009, 03:02
It should be E .. please confirm it by posting the OA.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 12

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 121

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 3

Show Tags

28 Oct 2009, 05:33
E clearly shows another reason for a decline in Lobster catches.

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 3

Current Student
Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 4

Show Tags

28 Oct 2009, 06:47
can anybody explain why not D?

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 121

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 3

Show Tags

28 Oct 2009, 08:54
yuskay wrote:
can anybody explain why not D?

Posted from my mobile device

The conclusion of this argument is that a 20% decline in lobster catches is attributed to legistlation to protect harbor seals, which actually leads to double population of harbor seals. Whatever authors of the 1972 registlation believed or expected to happen, it doesn't weaken the conclusion of this argument.

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 3

SVP
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1635

Kudos [?]: 688 [0], given: 432

Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44

Show Tags

13 Nov 2009, 21:35
I also agree; E is the best answer. It offers an alternative explanation to the low lobster population.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 688 [0], given: 432

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 52

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V25
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 03:51
milind1979 wrote:
A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can be justifiably blamed on legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals. Maine’s population of harbor seals is now double the level existing before production was initiated, and these seals are known to eat both fish and lobsters.

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

(A) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both.

(B) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch.

(C) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine’s coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy.

(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.

(E) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock.

Please someone explain me why its not D.

I brought it down to D and E but went with D. This happens to me so many times that I am now considering not to mark what I think.
_________________

Forget Kudos ... be an altruist

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 52

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1120

Kudos [?]: 2365 [1], given: 219

Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 04:12
1
KUDOS
stunn3r wrote:
milind1979 wrote:
A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can be justifiably blamed on legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals. Maine’s population of harbor seals is now double the level existing before production was initiated, and these seals are known to eat both fish and lobsters.

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

(A) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both.

(B) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch.

(C) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine’s coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy.

(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.

(E) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock.

Please someone explain me why its not D.

I brought it down to D and E but went with D. This happens to me so many times that I am now considering not to mark what I think.

Well, I would say that D is a bit out of scope here.

We are trying to prove the point that seals are not responsable for the decline of the lobsters population, hence we are trying to find another explanation for this decline.

(D) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal’s numbers would not have a measurably negative impact on the lobster catch.

What the legislation thought is not an alternative explanation clearly, E on the other hand gives us a second explanation that weakens the conclusion:
the decline is not caused by the seals but by the fact that "The record lobster harvests of the late 1970’s removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock."

Hope it's clear
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Kudos [?]: 2365 [1], given: 219

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 52

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V25
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 04:34
Zarrolou wrote:

We are trying to prove the point that seals are not responsable for the decline of the lobsters population, hence we are trying to find another explanation for this decline.

yeah .. exactly ... Its very clear now. Thanks ..

I screamed F*** in my mind so hard when I got this question wrong. this was 3rd consecutive wrong and I am doing 600-700 weakening. embarrassing
_________________

Forget Kudos ... be an altruist

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 52

Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 23

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 570 Q46 V23
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 05:22
i went for D too ,, should look at all the choices,, same mistake i make again and again.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 23

Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters   [#permalink] 26 Jun 2013, 05:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by