GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 26 Aug 2019, 02:56

Close

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 401
A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 03 Aug 2019, 11:21
1
9
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:43) correct 20% (02:02) wrong based on 368 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 protection 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.

Originally posted by reply2spg on 20 Jan 2009, 21:57.
Last edited by Bunuel on 03 Aug 2019, 11:21, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1497
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2009, 22:21
1
reply2spg 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 protection was initated, 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 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 reporductive stock.


E


Interesting question.!

The reasoning is:
1. the increase in habor seals
2. harbor seals eat fish and lobsters

A, that the seals are natural predators of lobster STRENTHENs rather than weakens the argument, A out

B, also suggests that harbor seals are natural predator of lobsters. Should not be confused with "finish eating". B strenthens rather than weakens Argument, B out

C. irrelevant

D. Whether or not the authors are convinced... does not affect the legistation passed, assuming that C strenthens argument also. C out

E. correct. E sussests that the lobsters are not, or little, effected by the predators, therefore the legistation passed.

E wins the games
_________________
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1497
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2009, 23:25
1
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"
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2012
Posts: 23
GMAT Date: 10-12-2012
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2012, 03:15
1
Argument says

A ( legislation passed) --> B (decline in lobster catches)

option E says, C ( removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reproductive stock )---> B (decline in lobster catches)

Option E give us another reason for decline in population.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 78
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V25
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1034
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2013, 04:12
1
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]
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 323
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2016, 04:34
argument sums up in the first line
why would the author mention the second line in the argument
Can someone elaborate please?

Also help me choose between D&E via the negation technique.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2866
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2016, 14:38
2
paidlukkha wrote:
argument sums up in the first line
why would the author mention the second line in the argument
Can someone elaborate please?

Also help me choose between D&E via the negation technique.


Negation technique does not work very well with weaken questions - I would suggest to use negation only for assumption questions. For weaken / strengthen, use the following:

Conclusion: X causes Z

Type A:
Strengthen: Y does not cause Z
Weaken: Y causes Z

Type B:
Strengthen: Z does not cause X
Weaken: Z causes X

This problem is of type A weaken.
X= Increase in population of harbour seals.
Z = reduction in number of lobster.
Y = taking out mature lobster from reproductive stock.

Conclusion: Increase in population of harbour seals caused reduction in number of lobster. (i.e.X caused Z).
Weakening statement: Something else, taking out mature lobster from reproductive stock, caused reduction in number of lobster. (i.e., Y caused Z)

Hence E is the correct answer.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Apr 2018
Posts: 17
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Apr 2019, 22:04
sayantanc2k wrote:
paidlukkha wrote:
argument sums up in the first line
why would the author mention the second line in the argument
Can someone elaborate please?

Also help me choose between D&E via the negation technique.


Negation technique does not work very well with weaken questions - I would suggest to use negation only for assumption questions. For weaken / strengthen, use the following:

Conclusion: X causes Z

Type A:
Strengthen: Y does not cause Z
Weaken: Y causes Z

Type B:
Strengthen: Z does not cause X
Weaken: Z causes X

This problem is of type A weaken.
X= Increase in population of harbour seals.
Z = reduction in number of lobster.
Y = taking out mature lobster from reproductive stock.

Conclusion: Increase in population of harbour seals caused reduction in number of lobster. (i.e.X caused Z).
Weakening statement: Something else, taking out mature lobster from reproductive stock, caused reduction in number of lobster. (i.e., Y caused Z)

Hence E is the correct answer.




In the parallel inference for D, it says that X would happen and Y will not. Hence another way to weaken the Cause and Effect. And for the same reason, I chose D over E. As E says mature lobsters were removed. Now mature lobsters may mean that they were no more useful for reproduction. Hence, not impacting the lobster number at all.

Any take on this?
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 944
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2019, 01:43
Fix the stupid spelling mistakes made in the OP please. :x :x

The argument is that a 20% reduction in the catch of lobsters can be attributed to a 1972 law passed to protect harbour seals.
This is based on the fact that the area's population of seals is now double the level existing before protection (the law) was initiated and the seals are known to eat fish and lobsters.


What weakens this?
A is what i stupidly selected. It actually explains the reduction caused by the abundance of seals - thinking about it this way.
B states that seals prey on lobsters. Whether they finish their catch or not.
C is besides the argument.
D this doesn't explain anything.
E - Well a reduction in reproductive stock would lead to a decrease in the population. If less animals are reproducing less offspring form. Thus, E states an alternative cause for the reduction. Correct.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if you like my post pls!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can   [#permalink] 03 Aug 2019, 01:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne