Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 02:37 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 02:37
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
655-705 Level|   Strengthen|                              
User avatar
Lucy Phuong
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Last visit: 12 Aug 2021
Posts: 116
Own Kudos:
349
 [5]
Given Kudos: 106
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 116
Kudos: 349
 [5]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 23 May 2017, 22:18
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ss18
I was confused between B and C.
I chose B. My reasoning was that B gets rid of another reason why it should have ONLY been orcas that were responsible.
I let go of C because there could be another reason why surviving otters are in an inaccessible place. Basically, I couldn't find a strong relation here for strengthening. it seemed mildly strengthening. Please help.
Show more

Hello,

IMHO (B) doesn't help get rid of alternative reason(s) for decline of sea otters population, because 2 situations "Seals DO eat sea otters" and "seals DO compete with sea otters for food" cannot be the reason why sea otters population is reduced. Why? Let's look back at stimulus. It is mentioned that "seal population declined dramatically", so if seals actually eat and compete with sea otters for food, then the decrease in seals number will result in increase in sea otter number. This totally contrasts with premise.
That's why (B) is not correct.

Hope this helps.
avatar
TheRzS
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Last visit: 09 Mar 2024
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
56
 [2]
Given Kudos: 163
Location: Australia
Posts: 59
Kudos: 56
 [2]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 20 Sep 2017, 23:44
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument‘?

A. The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined. - Incorrect: Out of scope

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food. - Incorrect: Shell game

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas. - Correct: When Cause does not happen [Orcas], Effect does not happen [Otters do not diminishl]

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s. Incorrect: Out of scope

E. An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food. - Incorrect: Out of scope
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,304
Own Kudos:
49,317
 [2]
Given Kudos: 6,180
GPA: 3.62
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 17,304
Kudos: 49,317
 [2]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 22 Feb 2019, 05:34
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Explanation

Read the question first

Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat Otters when Seals, their normal prey, areunavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Analysis

Needed: A statement which strengthen the conclusion which is : Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Stimulus already reflected that Orcas will eat Otters when their normal prey is unavailable, Now find a statement which shows that Orcas now eat Otters as Seals are not available for them.

Now look into answer choices

(A) The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.

It Neither Weakens nor Strengthen the conclusion, its just giving us a related fact. It is obvious when sea otter's population declines their prey remain alive and their number will increase. Eliminate It

(B) Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.
This information is Wrongly Related, why we need to know this?. We want to know the logic which relates to Orcas vs Otters not Seals vs Otters. It's a trap answer.

(C) Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.
Now read above what we need a statement which shows that Orcas now eat Otters as Seals are not available for them. This statement shows that Otters are being eaten by Orcas. Since only those are alive who lives in area inaccessible to orcas.

(D) The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.
It is Opposite answer, it weakens the conclusion. According to this choice if orcas are declining then Otters declining population have some other reason to so.

(E) An increase in commercial ?shing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the ?sh that seals use for food.
It is unrelated.

ANSWER: C
User avatar
ajaygaur319
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2019
Last visit: 01 Jan 2021
Posts: 126
Own Kudos:
654
 [1]
Given Kudos: 143
Location: India
Schools: NYU Tech MBA "21
Schools: NYU Tech MBA "21
Posts: 126
Kudos: 654
 [1]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 16 Mar 2020, 03:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Although (B) is irrelevant. The use of meaning their in the sentence below is totally ambiguous. I'm not sure whether their refer to otters or orcas

Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable,. Anyone wants to explain?
avatar
amalantony13
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2019
Last visit: 15 May 2021
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 19 Mar 2020, 09:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
WillGetIt
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument‘?

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.

Please hit kudos if you like this post.

Responding to a pm:

Again, Official Answers are not debatable and really, I haven't seen an exception, at least in the verbal section.

Try to understand the logic of (C).

They have very smartly used the word: "surviving".

Let's take the argument first.

Premises:
Sea otter population declined - but no sign of disease and malnutrition so predators might have been responsible.
Seal population declined dramatically.
Orcas eat otters when seals are not available.

Conclusion:
Orcas must have led to otter population decline.

We need to strengthen that orcas are responsible for the huge decline in otter population.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.
Had the option said, "Most sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas," then the option would have weakened our argument.
But the option says, "Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas." This means that the otters that are left are the ones where orcas cannot reach. Wherever orcas can reach, otters have disappeared from there. It means that it is highly probable that orcas have been binging on otters wherever possible.

Imagine a meadow which was full of grass 2 months back. A small part of the meadow is fenced. Some cattle was introduced in the meadow two months back. What happens if after to months you see that most of the grass is gone except the small part which was fenced? The likely reason is that the cattle ate the grass and hence reduced it.

This is the same concept.

None of the other options are relevant.

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.
Irrelevant

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.
What seals eat is none of concern. What we need to strengthen is that orcas ate up the otters.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.
This doesn't strengthen that orcas ate the otters. Perhaps some orcas couldn't adapt to decrease in seal population. We don't know.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.
This might affect seal population. It doesn't strengthen that orcas ate otters.

Answer (C)
Show more

It is nowhere implied in option C that the "surviving otters" survived from the orcans. They could have survived from anything. It could have been the orcans or climate change or lack of food sources etc.The argument is concerned with the decline in population of the otters. From that standpoint option C can be interpreted in different ways. If it was actually the orcans then it strengthens. If it was climate change or lack of food sources then it weakens.

I feel the option is ambiguous. I arrived at the option through process of elimination. Can anyone clarify this?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
 [4]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
 [4]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 30 Mar 2020, 10:31
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
amalantony13

It is nowhere implied in option C that the "surviving otters" survived from the orcans. They could have survived from anything. It could have been the orcans or climate change or lack of food sources etc.The argument is concerned with the decline in population of the otters. From that standpoint option C can be interpreted in different ways. If it was actually the orcans then it strengthens. If it was climate change or lack of food sources then it weakens.

I feel the option is ambiguous. I arrived at the option through process of elimination. Can anyone clarify this?
Show more
(C) tells us that some otters were still surviving as of the year 2000, while some were not.

In addition, it gives us some information about those surviving otters: most of them live in bays that are inaccessible to orcas.

This certainly doesn't prove that the orcas killed off the otters living in more accessible areas -- but it does support that conclusion. Otters in orca-infested waters died off, while otters in orca-free waters survived.

Our job is just to strengthen the argument, not to prove that it is 100% ironclad. (C) does exactly that, and none of the other answer choices come close, so (C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
David nguyen
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2017
Last visit: 18 Aug 2020
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
138
Given Kudos: 132
Status:Discipline & Consistency always beats talent
Location: United States (CA)
GPA: 3.59
WE:Sales (Retail: E-commerce)
Posts: 139
Kudos: 138
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 30 Mar 2020, 21:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
amalantony13

It is nowhere implied in option C that the "surviving otters" survived from the orcans. They could have survived from anything. It could have been the orcans or climate change or lack of food sources etc.The argument is concerned with the decline in population of the otters. From that standpoint option C can be interpreted in different ways. If it was actually the orcans then it strengthens. If it was climate change or lack of food sources then it weakens.

I feel the option is ambiguous. I arrived at the option through process of elimination. Can anyone clarify this?
(C) tells us that some otters were still surviving as of the year 2000, while some were not.

In addition, it gives us some information about those surviving otters: most of them live in bays that are inaccessible to orcas.

This certainly doesn't prove that the orcas killed off the otters living in more accessible areas -- but it does support that conclusion. Otters in orca-infested waters died off, while otters in orca-free waters survived.

Our job is just to strengthen the argument, not to prove that it is 100% ironclad. (C) does exactly that, and none of the other answer choices come close, so (C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
Show more

However, B states that Seals do not eat sea otters and the premise states that Oscars eat otters when seals are unavailable. In addition, Seal population declined dramatically. Therefore, taking both together, one can conclude that seals do not eat sea otters contribute to the fact that Oscars eat most of the otters, leading to the decline of the otter population.

Could GMATNINJA please advise where do I go wrong on the above reasoning? Thanks.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
 [4]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
 [4]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 13 Apr 2020, 18:12
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
David nguyen

However, B states that seals do not eat sea otters and the premise states that Oscars eat otters when seals are unavailable. In addition, Seal population declined dramatically. Therefore, taking both together, one can conclude that seals do not eat sea otters contribute to the fact that Oscars eat most of the otters, leading to the decline of the otter population.

Could GMATNINJA please advise where do I go wrong on the above reasoning? Thanks.
Show more
Here's the relevant information from the passage:

  • Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously.
  • the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s.
  • Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable
  • Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

What does (B) add to this chain of logic?
Quote:
(B) Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.
Show more
On the surface, this looks promising! If seals do not eat sea otters, then perhaps it strengthens the argument that the orcas are to blame.

However, this doesn't hold up to closer analysis of the information in the passage. The seal population "declined dramatically in the 1980s." We are concerned about the decline of the sea otter population "between 1980 and 2000."

If the seals caused the sea otter decline, then it makes no sense that the otters continued to dwindle for at least a decade after the seal population collapsed. In fact, if the seals were the issue, we would expect the sea otter population to increase if the seal population decreased. That's not what happened, so just from the information in the passage we can be confident that the seals are not the problem.

Receiving further confirmation of this in (B) doesn't really strengthen the author's argument. (C), on the other hand, provides additional information that points to orcas as the immediate cause of the otter population decline. (B) is out and (C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
avatar
HarshaGM
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2020
Last visit: 09 Oct 2023
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
89
Given Kudos: 19
Posts: 23
Kudos: 89
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 14 Apr 2020, 00:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The correct answer is option (C).

Let us understand why.

Understanding the passage:

1. Between 1980 and 2000, the population of Sea Otters in the Aleutian Islands has declined sharply
2. Probable reasons for this:
a) Disease of malnutrition - not observed
b) Eaten by Predators - observed
(i) Seals (primary predators)
(ii) Orcas
3. Orcas will eat otters when Seals are not not available
4. In Aleutian Islands, the Seal population has decreased dramatically in the 1980s.
5. Inference: Seals were not available in the time period between 1980 to 2000 (the time period in question)
6. Conclusion: Orcas were the reason behind the decline in Otter population.

Question: Find the strengthener for the conclusion above.

Thought Process:
What would be an effective strengthener here?
1. Any statement that provides us some sort of proof that a majority of the otters were eaten by the Orcas
2. Any statement that provides us some sort if proof that the few remaining otters only survived because they could not be attacked by Orcas (i.e. safe from Orcas)

Let us analyse the option choices.

(A) The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.

Irrelevant to our conclusion. This only provides another data point to tell us that the sea otter population declined. This is a known premise in the passage, and has no impact on the conclusion. Hence not a strengthener.

(B) Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.

This is an interesting choice. From the passage, the seal is a known predator, which eats sea otters. So, there is some ambiguity here. The inference from this statement is only that seals were not the major cause of declining otter population (neither do they eat otters, nor do they compete with Otters for food, depriving otters of their food).
However, we already know seals were essentially unavailable in this time period. This statement does not provide any point to strengthen the conclusion that the Urcas were the reason behind the declining Otter population. It only strengthens the belief that seals were not the reason behind the decline in Otter population.
Hence, irrelevant.

(C) Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.

This is in line with out strengthener 2. Most (>50%) of the surviving sea otters live in a bay inaccessible to Orcas. This means these otters were not exposed to Orcas (i.e. they were safe from Orcas). So, the most probable reason these otters survived is because they were safe from Orcas (not exposed to them). This strengthens our belief that Orcas are the main reason behind the overall decline in Otter population.

(D) The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.

This only tells us that the Orca population has also come down. But, it does not in anyway have any bearing on whether the Orcas were the main reason behind decline in Otter population. Even if the Orcas population declined (we do not know if this decline is gradual or exponential), the existing Orcas could still be eating enough Otters to create the steep decline in Otter population observed. But not necessarily. The impact of this statement is not clear. Hence not a strengthener.

(E) An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.

At best, this tells us that seal population probably declined due to this reason. but we already know this. This has no bearing on the conclusion. Hence, irrelevant.

Cheers!
avatar
Krishchamp
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2020
Last visit: 20 Nov 2023
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 88
Posts: 39
Kudos: 4
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 14 Jun 2020, 22:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can Option E as well strenghthen the argument?
If the food of seal is declined, then the population of seal may also decline. Because the population of seal declined, so Orcas now had to move towards eating Otters. And in this way conclusion that Orcas were the cause of Otters decline is strenghtend.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,580
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,580
 [2]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 14 Jun 2020, 23:28
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Krishchamp
Can Option E as well strenghthen the argument?
If the food of seal is declined, then the population of seal may also decline. Because the population of seal declined, so Orcas now had to move towards eating Otters. And in this way conclusion that Orcas were the cause of Otters decline is strenghtend.
Show more
The thing to notice here is that the passage has ALREADY STATED the the seal population has declined. So, this choice makes no difference.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
 [1]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 30 Jul 2020, 06:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
WillGetIt
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument‘?

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.

Please hit kudos if you like this post.

Responding to a pm:

Again, Official Answers are not debatable and really, I haven't seen an exception, at least in the verbal section.

Try to understand the logic of (C).

They have very smartly used the word: "surviving".

Let's take the argument first.

Premises:
Sea otter population declined - but no sign of disease and malnutrition so predators might have been responsible.
Seal population declined dramatically.
Orcas eat otters when seals are not available.

Conclusion:
Orcas must have led to otter population decline.

We need to strengthen that orcas are responsible for the huge decline in otter population.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.
Had the option said, "Most sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas," then the option would have weakened our argument.
But the option says, "Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas." This means that the otters that are left are the ones where orcas cannot reach. Wherever orcas can reach, otters have disappeared from there. It means that it is highly probable that orcas have been binging on otters wherever possible.

Imagine a meadow which was full of grass 2 months back. A small part of the meadow is fenced. Some cattle was introduced in the meadow two months back. What happens if after to months you see that most of the grass is gone except the small part which was fenced? The likely reason is that the cattle ate the grass and hence reduced it.

This is the same concept.

None of the other options are relevant.

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.
Irrelevant

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.
What seals eat is none of concern. What we need to strengthen is that orcas ate up the otters.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.
This doesn't strengthen that orcas ate the otters. Perhaps some orcas couldn't adapt to decrease in seal population. We don't know.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.
This might affect seal population. It doesn't strengthen that orcas ate otters.

Answer (C)
Show more

Responding to a pm:

Quote:

To strengthen, we need to eliminate any alternate cause of decline other than orcas.

In this case, stimulus says that no malnutrition, so orcas must be the cause since less availability of seals

But if seals themselves prey on sea otters, doesn't that weaken the conclusion that only orcas were responsible

Hence will it not strengthen the conclusion if we say that seals do not prey on sea otters, only orcas do and therefore they are the reason for decline in sea otters popn?
Show more

If we know that seals do not eat otters, it tells us that there is no connection between seals and otters. The fact that A, B or C do not eat otters, doesn't strengthen that orcas are eating otters. The conclusion doesn't say that only orcas can be responsible. It says that orcas are most likely the cause. We need to strengthen that orcas are most likely the cause so we need to strengthen the link between orcas and otters.
User avatar
saby1410
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Posts: 183
Kudos: 23
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 06 Aug 2020, 14:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma

if in option E instaed of slight decline if steep decline mention can we infer from that due shortage of seals food -->seals population declined -->so orcas food declines --> when orcas food(seal) declines thy eat otters
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
 [1]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 10 Aug 2020, 04:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
saby1410
VeritasKarishma

if in option E instaed of slight decline if steep decline mention can we infer from that due shortage of seals food -->seals population declined -->so orcas food declines --> when orcas food(seal) declines thy eat otters
Show more

We are already given that seal population has declined sharply. Even then this option would add nothing new.
avatar
sagarsangani123
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2017
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
28
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 51
Kudos: 28
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 03 Sep 2020, 12:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Few evident assumptions are:
- Orcas was available in the 1980s and the population of Orcas was enough between 1980 and 2000 to cause the decline of the otter population
- The seal population never increased post the decline in the 1980s causing the otter population to decline more than the decline caused by Orcas in the 1980s

Let's see if any answer choice strengthens by stating these assumptions:

(A) The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined - Sea urchins, thus have one less predator. This only strengthens the point that, 'sea otter population declined' by pointing out to the evidence that the population of sea urchins increased. But it doesn't strengthen the point that, 'orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline'. Reject

(B) Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food. - Out of context!

(C) Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas. - What about the sea otters that declined between 1980 and 2000? At first this seems out of context, but if most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas, then the those sea otters which were eaten might be eaten by Orcas since the sea otters were accessible to them.

(D) The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s. - A single orcas could eat many otters. Thus a decline in population of Orcas doesn't guarantee that it would not impact the population of otters. Possibly a weakner! Reject

(E) An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food - Doesn't affect the conclusion that 'orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline'

No answer choice stated the assumption pointed out earlier. But option C pointed out a scenario, which if true, could strengthen the point that Orcas were responsible for the decline of sea otter population between 1980 and 2000.

Some kudos or a thorough analysis of my post. Either can help me reach 700! ;)
User avatar
peanuts
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 17 May 2020
Last visit: 29 May 2021
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
57
Given Kudos: 34
Location: Viet Nam
Schools: Anderson '23 (A) Kellogg '23 (D) Fuqua '23 (WL) Yale '23 (WL) Sloan '23 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38
Schools: Anderson '23 (A) Kellogg '23 (D) Fuqua '23 (WL) Yale '23 (WL) Sloan '23 (D)
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 61
Kudos: 57
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 08 Sep 2020, 09:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Causality: Orcas --> sea otter declined

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument‘?

To strengthen the argument, we must strengthen the causality.

(A) The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined. It offers an alternative way to explain the decline of sea otter --> weaken

(B) Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food. it didn't offer any explanation for the reduction of sea otter population

(C) Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas. Yes. The structure is: no Orcas, sea otter survives. No cause, no consequence --> Strengthen

(D) The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s. If orcas population declined, then they may need to consume less food. So the population of seal reduction didn't cause the orcas to search for alternative source of food, such as, in this case, sea otter

(E) An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food. It offers an alternative way to explain the decline of sea otter --> weaken
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 16 Nov 2020, 10:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi VeritasKarishma - had option B said

-- Seals do eat sea otters and they DO compete with sea otters for food

Is this tweak in option B an example of a "Strengthener" ?

Per my understanding this tweak in option B would Strengthen and below is my thought process

Reasoning

- Seals NOW eat sea otters
- Seal population declining
- Inference : sea otters should be increasing

But given sea otters are declining (rather than increasing) per the premise , this shows there is more of a chance (just a slight more chance) that most likely some other animal is the cause for the reduction in sea otters

This would give a little bit more support towards the conclusion that perhaps Orca's killed off Sea otters (not a 100 % strengthener but perhaps a bit more strengthener)

Thoughts ?
User avatar
Kali123
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2017
Last visit: 29 Sep 2022
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 70
Posts: 26
Kudos: 9
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 17 Nov 2020, 08:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
WillGetIt
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument‘?

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.

Please hit kudos if you like this post.

Responding to a pm:

Again, Official Answers are not debatable and really, I haven't seen an exception, at least in the verbal section.

Try to understand the logic of (C).

They have very smartly used the word: "surviving".

Let's take the argument first.

Premises:
Sea otter population declined - but no sign of disease and malnutrition so predators might have been responsible.
Seal population declined dramatically.
Orcas eat otters when seals are not available.

Conclusion:
Orcas must have led to otter population decline.

We need to strengthen that orcas are responsible for the huge decline in otter population.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.
Had the option said, "Most sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas," then the option would have weakened our argument.
But the option says, "Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas." This means that the otters that are left are the ones where orcas cannot reach. Wherever orcas can reach, otters have disappeared from there. It means that it is highly probable that orcas have been binging on otters wherever possible.

Imagine a meadow which was full of grass 2 months back. A small part of the meadow is fenced. Some cattle was introduced in the meadow two months back. What happens if after to months you see that most of the grass is gone except the small part which was fenced? The likely reason is that the cattle ate the grass and hence reduced it.

This is the same concept.

None of the other options are relevant.

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.
Irrelevant

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.
What seals eat is none of concern. What we need to strengthen is that orcas ate up the otters.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.
This doesn't strengthen that orcas ate the otters. Perhaps some orcas couldn't adapt to decrease in seal population. We don't know.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.
This might affect seal population. It doesn't strengthen that orcas ate otters.

Answer (C)
Show more

Hi VeritasKarishma,

How is (B), out of scope? Does it not eliminate other cause and effect to the argument?

Thanks
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
 [2]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 18 Nov 2020, 05:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kalirocks
VeritasKarishma
WillGetIt
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Aleutian Islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument‘?

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.

Please hit kudos if you like this post.

Responding to a pm:

Again, Official Answers are not debatable and really, I haven't seen an exception, at least in the verbal section.

Try to understand the logic of (C).

They have very smartly used the word: "surviving".

Let's take the argument first.

Premises:
Sea otter population declined - but no sign of disease and malnutrition so predators might have been responsible.
Seal population declined dramatically.
Orcas eat otters when seals are not available.

Conclusion:
Orcas must have led to otter population decline.

We need to strengthen that orcas are responsible for the huge decline in otter population.

C. Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.
Had the option said, "Most sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas," then the option would have weakened our argument.
But the option says, "Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas." This means that the otters that are left are the ones where orcas cannot reach. Wherever orcas can reach, otters have disappeared from there. It means that it is highly probable that orcas have been binging on otters wherever possible.

Imagine a meadow which was full of grass 2 months back. A small part of the meadow is fenced. Some cattle was introduced in the meadow two months back. What happens if after to months you see that most of the grass is gone except the small part which was fenced? The likely reason is that the cattle ate the grass and hence reduced it.

This is the same concept.

None of the other options are relevant.

A The population of sea urchins, the main food of sea otters, has increased since the sea otter population declined.
Irrelevant

B. Seals do not eat sea otters, nor do they compete with sea otters for food.
What seals eat is none of concern. What we need to strengthen is that orcas ate up the otters.

D. The population of orcas in the Aleutian Islands has declined since the 1980s.
This doesn't strengthen that orcas ate the otters. Perhaps some orcas couldn't adapt to decrease in seal population. We don't know.

E An increase in commercial fishing near the Aleutian Islands in the 1980s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.
This might affect seal population. It doesn't strengthen that orcas ate otters.

Answer (C)

Hi VeritasKarishma,

How is (B), out of scope? Does it not eliminate other cause and effect to the argument?

Thanks
Show more

Think of the food chain: Orcas on top. They eat Seals. When seals are not available, they eat sea otters.

The argument tells us that seal population has declined. From this, we are concluding that orcas are eating otters. Now, what seals are eating is kind of pointless, right? Anyway, their population is declining. If we were worrying about increasing population of another species, we would have been interested in what seals are eating. But what we are interested in is the decreasing population of another species. This species acts as an alternate to seals as prey. Hence, the relation we are focusing on is orcas to seals/otters.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
 [3]
Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the Aleutian Islands 18 Nov 2020, 05:39
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi VeritasKarishma - had option B said

-- Seals do eat sea otters and they DO compete with sea otters for food

Is this tweak in option B an example of a "Strengthener" ?

Per my understanding this tweak in option B would Strengthen and below is my thought process

Reasoning

- Seals NOW eat sea otters
- Seal population declining
- Inference : sea otters should be increasing

But given sea otters are declining (rather than increasing) per the premise , this shows there is more of a chance (just a slight more chance) that most likely some other animal is the cause for the reduction in sea otters

This would give a little bit more support towards the conclusion that perhaps Orca's killed off Sea otters (not a 100 % strengthener but perhaps a bit more strengthener)

Thoughts ?
Show more

I wouldn't think so. Even if seals were eating otters, this would just tell us that the population of otters is less affected by seals now. But it would not strengthen that orcas are the ones reducing otter population. We need to find the reason for reduction in otter population.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts