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

It is currently 13 Aug 2018, 23:41

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 major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 91
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2007, 09:27
3
21
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:31) correct 47% (01:56) wrong based on 1758 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?


A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.

B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.

C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.

E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 14
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2014, 22:00
11
8
Hi,

Let me highlight some of the key facts from the prompt first:

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

Goal:
We need to weaken the argument attempting to disprove environmentalists' claim that the sea turtle population would decline (put that another way: we need to show that the sea turtle population could still be harmed by the spill).

B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.

If the turtles return when they're 10, then we have a scenario that shows that what's happening right now in no way can be used as a measure of the health of the sea turtle population. With this answer the turtles from the year of the spill could have been decimated, but the number of turtles right now could be bigger than ever if what we're seeing right now are those returning after 10 years.

If you'd like some additional follow up let me know. I'd be happy to help.
_________________

Allen T.
EMPOWERgmat Advisor
http://www.empowergmat.com

EMPOWERgmat GMAT Club Page, Study Plans, & Discounts
http://gmatclub.com/blog/courses/empowergmat-discount/?fl=menu

Image

Most Helpful Community Reply
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 500
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2014, 00:17
12
2
Hi,

Below is my reasoning for B. Initially I also got stumped by B .
Regards.
Conclusion:
environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.
Premise:
1. A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, "the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles", and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.
2. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.
Assumption:These turtles are from the same batch that survived 5 years ago on Baker's Beach.
Weakener: What if these are not from that batch.Then that way environmentalist argument wont be broken and hence author conclusion wold be weaken.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
B does that.
If Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old , then they are not from the same batch. They must be from an earlier batch and hence they were not impacted from the accident on Baker's Beach 5 years ago.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

General Discussion
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1394
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2007, 19:07
stevegt wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.


This is B.
The assumption here is that last year's hatching affect the number of turtle this year.
If turtles only come back when they are 10 years old, then last year's hatching will not affect the number of turtle.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Affiliations: USMA
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 19
Location: DC
Schools: Columbia, NYU, Dartmouth, Darden
WE 1: Army
WE 2: Consultant
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2010, 11:39
1
I thought the answer is B.

Because a chemical spill occurred five years ago and turtles are returning to lay eggs on the beach, we can conclude that turtle population is unaffected by the spill.

If it takes 10 years to get to maturity and return to the beach to lay eggs, then turtles unaffected by the spill would return. Therefore, the environmentalist's drawn conclusion could still be true.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 316
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2015, 04:35
2
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.



A- Contradicts the information in the passage.
B- We need to weaken the refutation. This option is plausible since it gives a reason to believe that indeed the eggs did not hatch and the returning females were actually born almost 5 years before the spill and thus remained unaffected.These females do not represent any successful hatching of eggs after the spill .
C-Irrelevant. Does not refute the prediction in any way. Instead it slightly strengthens the refutation.
D-Irrelevant. Does not refute the prediction in any way. Instead strengthens the refutation.
C-Irrelevant. Does not refute the prediction in any way. Instead it slightly strengthens the refutation.
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Intern
Intern
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 May 2014
Posts: 31
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.8
Reviews Badge
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Mar 2015, 10:03
5
B!

To prove : the population HAS INDEED come down (and will go down in future)

B proves that females take 10 years to return thus proving that the number of females who returned now would be born 10 years before thus we
cannot make judgement based on the number returned this year.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 879
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2016, 08:26
4
1
goalsnr wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.


Author's Conclusion:- Environmentalist's prediction is unfounded.

Prediction of E's- turtle population will decline.

What we have to prove:- E's prediction is not unfounded. Or E is probably right in the prediction.

Looking at the argument, we see that there are few facts:-
-Oil spill occurred 5 years ago
-BB is the ONLY ground for MT
- Oil spill prevented nearly ALL eggs from hatching


Surprising fact:- MT still return to lay its eggs at the BB (She is not aware of the oil spill, it seems :P. The site is disastrous for the eggs)

But wait! Where are these turtles coming from? Nearly ALL eggs vanished 5 years ago and continue to prevent hatching eggs further.

The only reason could be that these females coming to lay their eggs here were born before oil spill. They will lay the eggs, which in turn will be vanished by oil, leading to decreased turtle population and supporting E's prediction.

Few Possible strengtheners-
1) The Turtles, along with eggs, coming to lay its eggs will severely be affected by the oil in the water.
2) The conditions at the base of sea has not improved since past 5 years and nearly ALL eggs will continue to vanish.


A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach. This is just a piece of information , but it doesn't tell us what will be the effect on number of turtles in future. Also, it is mentioned in the argument that there were eggs (only then they can vanish). It seems a false information.

B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old. This is what one possible answer. These turtles will eventually die at certain old age and the eggs will anyway be vanished.

C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach. We are talking about abnormal conditions in the argument.

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs. It makes us believe that if predator has declined , MT should increase. But it doesn't tell us the other way.

E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill. This is out of scope. Rejection doesn't mean that population will decline while their is increase in number of females going to the beach to lay eggs.
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 27 Mar 2014
Posts: 101
Schools: ISB '19, IIMA , IIMB
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2017, 10:18
1
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
Correct ; Since sea turtles come when they are 10 year old , the ill effects of chemical spill will be visible after 10 years.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
Highlighted part is the issue here. decline of 'one of the several species' will not have significant overall effect. ; incorrect

E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3
WE: Project Management (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2017, 20:50
rishabhdxt wrote:
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
Highlighted part is the issue here. decline of 'one of the several species' will not have significant overall effect. ; incorrect




rishabhdxt Thanks for the reply.

How can we say that it won't have a significant effect? Maybe this specie is the largest of the group and other specie population is almost negligible in comparison to this specie! We don't have enough data to prove any of this. Am I assuming too much? If there was no option B, would u have chosen this option?
_________________

Kudos if you like my post

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2017, 08:12
It's a sweet one! Check out Relationships in the argument.
IMO: Data Flaw Type
Conclusion: Environment's prediction is unproven.
Based on Premise: Some data -namely, increasing number of Merricks.
Weakener: What if the data is not representative? correct AC: Show that cited sample is from another data set (i.e. different Time Frame)

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach. Opposite - if this was true, the prediction would be false, and the author's conclusion would be true.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old. Correct: This answer shows that the data sample (returning Merricks) are from a data set, that is actually not affected by the spill. So the author cannot base his conclusion on a different set of Merricks that have not been affected by the spill. Conclusion is has been weakened.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach. Irrelevant - Prediction could still be true
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs. Out of scope - this AC clearly states that these pressure are UNRELATED TO THE CHEMICAL Spill, whereas the Predictions are based on the results of the spill (stated in the stimulus). So any other stuff unrelated to the spill is irrelevant.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill - Clearly, irrelevant. If this answer choice had some effect, it would rather strengthen the author's conclusion, because if a group rejected to transfer eggs from the affected beach to a non-affected beach, one could assume that the spill had not have such a big effect, and thus the environmentalists' prediction are unfounded.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Jun 2017
Posts: 50
GMAT 1: 660 Q39 V40
GMAT 2: 700 Q45 V41
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2017, 19:27
I see how B works, but I'm still a little confused on D.

"Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs."

If the species of sea birds that eat turtle eggs has taken a hit, this would mean, that more turtle eggs are given a chance to hatch causing an increase in the population of female turtles, which in turn, would return to the beach to lay their eggs.

Does't this provide an alternate explanation as to why there is an increase in the no. of turtles returning to lay eggs?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 62
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
CAT Tests
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2018, 09:04
From all the posts in this thread, I do understand why B is the answer but I don't understand why D is wrong. D seems to provide an alternate explanation which could result in the increase in the turtles' population. I feel that D might be a better option than B.
_________________

Everything You Need To Know About Verb Tenses

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1896
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2018, 11:00
1
dabaobao wrote:
From all the posts in this thread, I do understand why B is the answer but I don't understand why D is wrong. D seems to provide an alternate explanation which could result in the increase in the turtles' population. I feel that D might be a better option than B.

Quote:
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.

(D) tells us that the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on the turtle eggs has declined. Yes, this might (or might not) explain a slight increase in turtle survival rates and thus a slight increase in turtle population.

But remember that we are specifically looking for an answer choice that "seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction." What is that argument?

  • Nearly all of the eggs laid during the year of the spill failed to hatch.
  • Nevertheless, "the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago."
  • According to the author, the fact that the number of adult females returning to lay their eggs has increased is evidence that the turtle's population has NOT declined.
  • In other words, the author says, "Hey look, more adult females are returning to Baker's Beach, so the turtle population must not have declined."

We need an answer choice that undermines THAT specific line of reasoning. Sure, (D) provides a possible explanation for a population increase. But if we only explain a population increase, we have not hurt the author's argument.

If (D) were true, the author would say, "Fine, but if the population has increased, then the environmentalists were wrong." (D) simply offers a possible explanation for the evidence used in the author's argument (that there are more adult females returning to lay their eggs). But that doesn't affect that evidence or the conclusion drawn by the author based on that evidence. The environmentalists still seem to be wrong, and the author still seems to be right.

Since (D) does not undermine the author's argument, it should be eliminated.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
Posts: 66
Location: India
Schools: IIMA PGPX"20
GMAT 1: 550 Q39 V26
GPA: 3.1
CAT Tests
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2018, 16:50
The argument states that as a result of a chemical spill 5 years ago, it was predicted that the population of the Merrick Sea Turtles would decrease. However, the number of female Merricks who have returned to lay their eggs on the beach has increased over the last 5 years. Therefore, the author concludes that the prediction made by the environmentalists about the threat to the Merrick turtles caused by the oil spill. We need to weaken this conclusion. We need to prove that the oil spill has threatened the populations of the turtles.

If there were no turtles or eggs at that point, then it is probable that the spill did not do any damage to the Merricks. This may end up strengthening the author’s claim.
CORRECT. The Merricks return to hatch eggs only when they are 10 years old. But the spill occurred 5 years ago. Thus, the ones who are returning currently were already 5 years ago when the spill occurred. But the Merricks who could have been potentially affected by the spill would presently only be 5 years old. Thus, in order to figure out the exact nature of the damage done by the spill, we need to wait for another 5 years to know how many turtles actually return. The turtles who are presently return are not an accurate indicator of the damage done to the turtles.
‘Normal conditions’ is irrelevant.
If the creatures that prey on turtles have declined then it is possible that the number of turtles will also increase. This information, then, does not prove that chemical spill had a negative effect on the turtle population.
If the eggs were not transferred from the nearby beaches, then the fact remains that more turtles have returned over the last five years to lay their eggs. This may also strengthen the author’s claim.

I think, I deserve a kudus LOL
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the &nbs [#permalink] 05 Aug 2018, 16:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.