Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 08:53 It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 08:53
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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
avatar
iammanas
avatar
Schools: Anderson '24 Booth '24 Broad Carlson Carroll CEIBS '24 Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 Goizueta '24 ESADE Foster '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 IMD '22 ISB '23 Johnson '24 Jones Judge '23 Katz Kelley '24 Kellogg '24 Kenan-Flagler '24 LBS '24 Madison Marshall '24 Mays McCombs '24 McDonough '24 Mendoza Merage NTU NUS Owen '24 Said '23 BU Ross '24 Rotman '24 Erasmus Scheller Bocconi Simon '24 Sloan '24 Smeal Stanford '24 Tepper '24 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 2: 760 Q49 V44
Posts: 26
Kudos: 7
Critical Reasoning | Weaken the Argument 06 Sep 2020, 22:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Spanish Mackerel and other commonly eaten fish are at a higher risk of contracting fungal infection when industrial effluents contaminate their water. A proposal has been put forth to reroute offshore, gallons of industrial effluents every single day. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of effluents in the water bodies where mackerels are caught, the proposal is pointless because hardly any mackerels live long enough to be harmed by these infections.

Question:
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Options:
A. Contaminants in the water other than industrial effluents are equally harmful to mackerel.
B. Humans often become ill as a result of eating mackerel with fungal infections.
C. Mackerel, like other fresh-water eating fish, live longer in the isolated lakes than in water bodies close to industrialized land.
D. Mackerel breed as readily in effluent-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
E. Fungal infections cannot be detected by examining the surface skin or scales of the fish.

Doubt:
My one-line summary for the argument: Rerouting the contaminated water will reduce effluents but then its pointless as mackerels do not live long even otherwise.

Basis this, I believe C should be the correct answer as its telling that if isolated water away from industries is given, Mackerels can live longer (and thus industries would have a role to play by contaminating water). However, the correct answer is B. I think it might be so because that would make the proposal not pointless, but not sure if that is the correct understanding.

arun@crackverbal CrackVerbal - Help need, Sir.
User avatar
Avinashkr29
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2016
Last visit: 12 Aug 2021
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
37
 [1]
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Posts: 84
Kudos: 37
 [1]
Critical Reasoning | Weaken the Argument 07 Sep 2020, 00:22
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
iammanas
The Spanish Mackerel and other commonly eaten fish are at a higher risk of contracting fungal infection when industrial effluents contaminate their water. A proposal has been put forth to reroute offshore, gallons of industrial effluents every single day. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of effluents in the water bodies where mackerels are caught, the proposal is pointless because hardly any mackerels live long enough to be harmed by these infections.

Question:
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Options:
A. Contaminants in the water other than industrial effluents are equally harmful to mackerel.
B. Humans often become ill as a result of eating mackerel with fungal infections.
C. Mackerel, like other fresh-water eating fish, live longer in the isolated lakes than in water bodies close to industrialized land.
D. Mackerel breed as readily in effluent-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
E. Fungal infections cannot be detected by examining the surface skin or scales of the fish.

Doubt:
My one-line summary for the argument: Rerouting the contaminated water will reduce effluents but then its pointless as mackerels do not live long even otherwise.

Basis this, I believe C should be the correct answer as its telling that if isolated water away from industries is given, Mackerels can live longer (and thus industries would have a role to play by contaminating water). However, the correct answer is B. I think it might be so because that would make the proposal not pointless, but not sure if that is the correct understanding.

arun@crackverbal CrackVerbal - Help need, Sir.
Show more

Yes, the answer is B.
B) Humans often become ill as a result of eating mackerel with fungal infections.
Yes , your understanding is correct. According to statement, Spanish Mackerel is one of the commonly eaten fishes. The fluent goes in the area from where these mackerels are caught.
Option C introduces new information.