It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 22:24

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish

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

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [3], given: 6

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2011, 09:18
3
This post received
KUDOS
25
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

31% (01:33) correct 69% (01:58) wrong based on 1182 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish
that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One
possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release
daily and which can alter the concentration of
hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the
cause, since the fish recover normal hormone
concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill
shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the
environment.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by vjsharma25 on 15 Mar 2011, 09:01, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 336 [3], given: 6

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 409

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 115

Reviews Badge
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2011, 14:38
is it C?

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 115

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2011, 20:58
heygirl wrote:
is it C?

You are right!!
Please explain your reasoning also.

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2011, 20:58
heygirl wrote:
is it C?

You are right!!
Please explain your reasoning also.

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 88

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 0

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 07:17
1
This post received
KUDOS
finally, i now understand the CR....
the main point is that the CR supposed that saying the eproductive abnormalities in fish caused by dioxin from paper mill, the dioxin which is released daily far downstream is totally wrong because the dioxin decomposes very slowly in ENVIROMENT and since the paper mill shutdowns sometimes and the fact is that the fish recovered very quickly right after the paper mill shutdowns ( shutdowns here is it stop releasing dioxin in the river and when it stop releasing dioxin in the river, the fish becomes nornal again, like nothing happen)

C weakens it by saying that although paper mills stop releasing dioxin into the river sometimes but its effect is still there because the river carrys dioxin in hours....

does it help?

this CR is tough... is it from Lsat?

Kudos [?]: 8 [1], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 8

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 07:57
vjsharma25 wrote:
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish
that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One
possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release
daily and which can alter the concentration of
hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the
cause, since the fish recover normal hormone
concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill
shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the
environment.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood.

vjsharma25, can you please let me know the source ?? Thanks

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 8

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [1], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 08:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
Onell wrote:
vjsharma25, can you please let me know the source ?? Thanks

Source is mentioned in the question tag,its from LSAT.

Kudos [?]: 336 [1], given: 6

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 409

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 115

Reviews Badge
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 08:48
vjsharma25 wrote:
heygirl wrote:
is it C?

You are right!!
Please explain your reasoning also.

Sure.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 115

3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 409

Kudos [?]: 70 [3], given: 115

Reviews Badge
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 08:52
3
This post received
KUDOS
Conclusion here is dioxin is not the cause

(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.not related to conclusion
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.if anything,strengthens the argument
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.best answer. it says that dioxin travels far downstream because of the currents. Hence, the first statement of the argument is weakened and thus the conclusion.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.unrelated to argument
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood. again,unrelated

Kudos [?]: 70 [3], given: 115

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 09:05
heygirl wrote:
Conclusion here is dioxin is not the cause

(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.not related to conclusion
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.if anything,strengthens the argument
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.best answer. it says that dioxin travels far downstream because of the currents. Hence, the first statement of the argument is weakened and thus the conclusion.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.unrelated to argument
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood. again,unrelated

Now thats what I want about the discussion.Answers should be discussed. Good work heygirl :-)

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

12 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [12], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 09:19
12
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The argument is saying that dioxin can not be the cause for fish problem.Since dioxin doesn't decompose very easily it must be present in the water even when the mill is shutdown.But strangely fish recover.So there is some other cause to the fish problem.
So any answer choice which can show that indeed dioxin is the cause of the problem, is the right answer.

"C" says that Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover.During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it.So it proves that dioxin is the cause.Hence the answer.

Kudos [?]: 336 [12], given: 6

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 409

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 115

Reviews Badge
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 09:36
Vjsharma,kudos to you! great explanation. it is so nice of you to post all such questions here. really helpful.
i'm doing my CR prep with only these questions!

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 115

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2011, 09:50
heygirl wrote:
Vjsharma,kudos to you! great explanation. it is so nice of you to post all such questions here. really helpful.
i'm doing my CR prep with only these questions!

Thanks for the encouragement.

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 6

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 182

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 118

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2011, 07:38
vjsharma25 wrote:
The argument is saying that dioxin can not be the cause for fish problem.Since dioxin doesn't decompose very easily it must be present in the water even when the mill is shutdown.But strangely fish recover.So there is some other cause to the fish problem.
So any answer choice which can show that indeed dioxin is the cause of the problem, is the right answer.

"C" says that Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover.During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it.So it proves that dioxin is the cause.Hence the answer.


I did not quite understand your analysis. You are saying that "Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover". If so this is strengthening the argument isn't it? From this how did you deduce that "During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it". Anyways as per the argument fish recover when the mill is shutdown. So the current has time to take the dioxin further downstream.

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 118

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 336 [1], given: 6

Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2011, 09:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
nikhilsrl wrote:
I did not quite understand your analysis. You are saying that "Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover". If so this is strengthening the argument isn't it?
No.Argument says that dioxin is not the cause for fish problem.Argument tries to support its conclusion by stating that dioxin decomposes very slowly,so even when mill is shutdown,dioxin should be present.Then how come fish recover,so there should be some cause other than dioxin.But if fish recover when dioxin is washed away then it means that dioxin is the root cause.Because in its absence all good things happen to fish.And when mill is not shutdown, because of which there is continuous supply of dioxin in the river,fish have reproductive abnormalities..

From this how did you deduce that "During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it". Anyways as per the argument fish recover when the mill is shutdown. So the current has time to take the dioxin further downstream.

Kudos [?]: 336 [1], given: 6

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 228 [1], given: 4

Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Mar 2011, 12:28
1
This post received
KUDOS
c

Kudos [?]: 228 [1], given: 4

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 182

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 118

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Biologists and paper mills [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2011, 08:50
vjsharma25 wrote:
nikhilsrl wrote:
I did not quite understand your analysis. You are saying that "Normal river currents quickly carry the dioxin far downstream.It means that dioxin is washed away from the fish area,thats why they recover". If so this is strengthening the argument isn't it?
No.Argument says that dioxin is not the cause for fish problem.Argument tries to support its conclusion by stating that dioxin decomposes very slowly,so even when mill is shutdown,dioxin should be present.Then how come fish recover,so there should be some cause other than dioxin.But if fish recover when dioxin is washed away then it means that dioxin is the root cause.Because in its absence all good things happen to fish.And when mill is not shutdown, because of which there is continuous supply of dioxin in the river,fish have reproductive abnormalities..

From this how did you deduce that "During normal operation of the mill,there is continuous release of dioxin in the river,thats why normal current can't carry the substantial amount of dioxin with it". Anyways as per the argument fish recover when the mill is shutdown. So the current has time to take the dioxin further downstream.


Thanks I was just not able to get my head round that arg.

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 118

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 195

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 78

Schools: ABCD
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2011, 05:17
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish
that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One
possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release
daily and which can alter the concentration of
hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the
cause, since the fish recover normal hormone
concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill
shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the
environment.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood.

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 78

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Posts: 17

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

GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V50
GPA: 3.93
Re: <Tough CR :( > [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2011, 22:24
voodoochild wrote:
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish
that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One
possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release
daily and which can alter the concentration of
hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the
cause, since the fish recover normal hormone
concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill
shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the
environment.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood.

OA - C Please explain why. This one completely blew me off.



The argument given against dioxin is as follows:

Fact - Dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment
Fact - Fish recover normal hormone concentrations quickly during mill shutdowns (presumably while dioxin is not being released into the environment)
Conclusion - Dioxin is unlikely to be the cause (of hormone imbalance in fish)

However, if normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours, then it doesn't matter that that dioxin decomposes slowly - it has all been carried away downstream, which means that the fish are now in dioxin-free conditions. Therefore, the fact that the fish recover quickly can't be used to rule out dioxin as the original cause of altered hormone concentrations.

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: livin on a prayer!!
Joined: 12 May 2011
Posts: 119

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

Location: Australia
Re: <Tough CR :( > [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Oct 2011, 19:04
Argument: Dioxin decomps slowly, fish recover normal [hormones] quickly

The answer is C. If the river carries the dioxin far downstream in a few hours, then it doesn't matter if dioxin decomps slowly, there won't be any dioxin in the water anyway. So you can't rule out dioxin as an unlikely cause as a result of the fish altered concentrations.
_________________

Aim for the sky! (800 in this case)
If you like my post, please give me Kudos :)

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

Re: <Tough CR :( >   [#permalink] 29 Oct 2011, 19:04

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 42 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.