A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 28 Feb 2017, 07:34

### 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 study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2007, 03:51
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the long-term operation of offshore oil rigs had on animal life on the bottom of the sea. The study compared the sea-bottom communities near rigs with those located in control sites several miles from any rig and found no significant differences. The researchers concluded that oil rigs had no adverse effect on sea-bottom animals.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcherâ€™ conclusion?

(A) Commercially important fish depend on sea-bottom animals for much of their food, so a drop in catches of these fish would be evidence of damage to sea-bottom communities.
(B) The discharge of oil from offshore oil rigs typically occurs at the surface of the water, and currents often carry the oil considerable distances before it settles on the ocean floor.
(C) Contamination of the ocean floor from sewage and industrial effluent does not result in the destruction of all sea-bottom animals but instead reduces species diversity as well as density of animal life.
(D) Only part of any oil discharged into the ocean reaches the ocean floor: some oil evaporates, and some remains in the water as suspended drops.
(E) Where the ocean floor consists of soft sediment, contaminating oil persists much longer than where the ocean floor is rocky.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 518
Location: Indonesia
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2007, 06:34
Answer should be B, as it clarify that the the research should be carried out in distant place rather than at the bottom of the rigs.

(B) The discharge of oil from offshore oil rigs typically occurs at the surface of the water, and currents often carry the oil considerable distances before it settles on the ocean floor.

regards,

Amardeep
Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 240
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2007, 06:50
(B)

Effects of oil should be several miles, but the comparison study of animal life was not far enough from the site.
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 274
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2007, 20:59
I had some confusion between A and B. I selected B. Can someone explain A to be again?

Thanks

E - Soft Sediment etc - out of scope
D - The evidence presented does not talk about suspended oil droplets etc. Irrelevant
C - sewage and industrial effluent (Out of Scope)
A - Does not talk about oil rigs and its effects in distant places.

A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the long-term operation of offshore oil rigs had on animal life on the bottom of the sea. The study compared the sea-bottom communities near rigs with those located in control sites several miles from any rig and found no significant differences. The researchers concluded that oil rigs had no adverse effect on sea-bottom animals.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcherâ€™ conclusion?

(A) Commercially important fish depend on sea-bottom animals for much of their food, so a drop in catches of these fish would be evidence of damage to sea-bottom communities.
(B) The discharge of oil from offshore oil rigs typically occurs at the surface of the water, and currents often carry the oil considerable distances before it settles on the ocean floor.
(C) Contamination of the ocean floor from sewage and industrial effluent does not result in the destruction of all sea-bottom animals but instead reduces species diversity as well as density of animal life.
(D) Only part of any oil discharged into the ocean reaches the ocean floor: some oil evaporates, and some remains in the water as suspended drops.
(E) Where the ocean floor consists of soft sediment, contaminating oil persists much longer than where the ocean floor is rocky.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2007, 22:53
B !
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

13 Mar 2007, 22:53
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
An international study recently examined the effects of 11 15 Jul 2011, 08:53
A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the 3 01 Jul 2009, 00:45
1 In a study of the effect of color on productivity, 50 of 100 11 22 Jan 2009, 19:27
In a study of the effect of color on productivity, 50 of 100 1 02 Aug 2008, 11:31
9 A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of 13 30 Jan 2008, 05:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by