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   4 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|                     
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 12 Aug 2024, 21:37
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KaranB1
(E) Recent surveys show that more than half of the people in the region report that they have never seen a mountain lion before.

Answer choice E implies that people who claimed to have seen the mountain lions in the suburban outskirts MIGHT have never
seen a mountain lions before. Isn't this a strong weaker?


(C) No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting.

I agree that this answer choice is a weaker too. But the point is according to the prompt Several people in the
past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion. Although a single person could have made a mistake,
but in this there are many people claimed to have seen a mountain lion.

Please help me understand why C is better?

KarishmaB
AjiteshArun
GMATNinja
Show more
­Hi KaranB1,

What you're saying is possible, but it isn't very likely.

First, let's lock down why we may look at option E: (i) people who've never seen a mountain lion before (surveys) suddenly claim they've seen a mountain lion (sightings) and (ii) people who in the past claimed they've seen a mountain lion (sightings) now claim they've never seen a mountain lion (surveys).

The first (i) would help because it'd tell us that these people are less likely to be able to identify a mountain lion accurately. The second (ii) would help because it'd tell us that perhaps the people who reported seeing a mountain lion realised that they made a mistake (and therefore now don't report having seen a mountain lion before).

Let's see what the question tells us:

1. The stimulus tells us "several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen a mountain lion... the latest just last month".

2. Option E, on the other hand, includes information from "recent surveys".

Although recent isn't clearly defined, it's reasonable to say that past few years ≠ recent. In other words, the reports of sightings came in before the surveys, so (i) is not likely. That leaves us with (ii), and I think we're stretching a bit too much by this point (firstly, assuming that there is overlap, and secondly, assuming that people have changed their reports).

Here's how we should look at option E: The surveys are recent, and they tell us that most people haven't seen mountain lions. Therefore the people the surveys are talking about are most likely not the same as the ones who reported seeing a mountain lion. This isn't inconsistent with the situation in the question, as only "several" people have reported seeing a mountain lion "in the past few years".

As far as option C is concerned, I see that you understand the logic. C is a weak weakener, but it is still better than the other options, so we mark it.­
User avatar
Sarthakdua3
User avatar
Joined: 02 May 2023
Last visit: 29 Oct 2025
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 39
Posts: 3
Kudos: 1
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 18 Aug 2024, 09:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Applying the logic of why C weakens then argument, can't we also strengthen the argument?

If all the sightings were by individuals rather than by a group, doesn't it strengthen the several aspect of the premise? Different individuals claiming to see a mountain lion separately seems like a relatively stronger indication of a mountain lion being present when compared with just several people seeing it.

The probability of several people seeing it in one instance and being wrong is higher than the probability of several people individually seeing the mountain lion separately and being wrong.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 18 Aug 2024, 21:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sarthakdua3
Applying the logic of why C weakens then argument, can't we also strengthen the argument?

If all the sightings were by individuals rather than by a group, doesn't it strengthen the several aspect of the premise? Different individuals claiming to see a mountain lion separately seems like a relatively stronger indication of a mountain lion being present when compared with just several people seeing it.

The probability of several people seeing it in one instance and being wrong is higher than the probability of several people individually seeing the mountain lion separately and being wrong.
Show more
­Hi Sarthakdua3,

I see what you're getting at, but you may be taking an extreme position on the number of sightings. Keep in mind (a) that we're definitely looking at more than one sighting ("the latest just last month") and (b) that all this is over a period of years. Also, your point about more sightings by individuals being better than fewer sightings by groups is a extremely limited, as you are focusing only on number of sightings.

Instead, we should ask ourselves why every single sighting is only by an individual. That is, if there really is a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts, why exactly has it never been seen even once in the past few years by a group of at least two people?
User avatar
sambhavrastogi
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 376
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 18 Sep 2025, 01:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
why not option D ? is it out of scope or something else ?
everyone mention the reason past year but the sitting is happening since past year so what is wrong in the option ?
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,888
 [1]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,888
 [1]
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 18 Sep 2025, 09:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sambhavrastogi
why not option D ? is it out of scope or something else ?
everyone mention the reason past year but the sitting is happening since past year so what is wrong in the option ?
Show more
sambhavrastogi

Let me help clarify the specific issue with this answer choice.

The Key Timeline Issue with Option (D)

The critical problem with option (D) lies in a temporal mismatch between what the argument discusses and what the answer choice addresses:

From the stimulus:
  • People have claimed sightings over "the past few years"
  • The most recent sighting was "last month"
  • This suggests sightings spanning 2-5 years approximately

From option (D):
  • Only addresses migration reports from "the past year"
  • This is just a 1-year window

Why This Mismatch Matters
Think about it this way: If mountain lions have been spotted for several years, but option (D) only tells us there were no migration reports in the past year, this leaves a significant gap. The mountain lions could have:

  • Migrated 2, 3, or 4 years ago (explaining earlier sightings)
  • Already been established in the area before the "past year" timeframe

Option (D) essentially says: "No migration in Year 5" but the sightings occurred in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. This doesn't explain or cast doubt on the earlier sightings at all.

Why Option (E) is Stronger

Option (E) provides an alternative explanation for ALL the sightings: if most people have never seen a mountain lion before, they could be misidentifying other animals as mountain lions. This directly attacks the assumption that the reported sightings are accurate, regardless of when they occurred.

You can find the detailed explanation to this question here- it will help you understand the logical structure of the question and understand the right framework to approach similar questions.

Key Takeaway for CR Weakening Questions

A strong weakener must:

  • Address the entire scope of the evidence presented
  • Provide an alternative explanation or cast doubt on a key assumption
  • Have temporal and logical alignment with the argument's claims

Option (D) fails the first criterion because it only addresses a fraction of the relevant time period, making it an ineffective weakener.
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
 [1]
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
 [1]
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 19 Sep 2025, 15:33
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sambhavrastogi
why not option D ? is it out of scope or something else ?

everyone mention the reason past year but the sitting is happening since past year so what is wrong in the option ?
Show more
It's very possible to have mountain lion sightings even without significant migration. (It's also possible to have migration even without reports of migration!)

In fact, if there already was migration of mountain lions into the region, there would likely be LOTS of sightings. And in order for there to be regional reports of migration, there would likely have to be significant sightings by the professionals/scientists making those regional reports. If that were the case, local wildlife managers would probably already be doing something address the situation (and the farmer wouldn't have to make this argument at all).

Remember, the expectation is for there to be NO mountain lions in the region. The local population likely wouldn't skyrocket overnight. Instead, we'd first expect only a few mountain lions to start wandering into the area, before there is significant migration or reports of migration. That's probably what's going on in the region now, and that's why the farmer is concerned. The farmer wants to make sure things don't get worse.

For more on why (C) is the right answer, check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/farmer-sever ... l#p2554193.
User avatar
Aishna1034
User avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2023
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 219
Own Kudos:
64
Given Kudos: 150
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 219
Kudos: 64
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 30 Sep 2025, 23:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I agree here E is a weak weakener, but so is C. I mean in C also we are assuming that people might be on some drugs thats why they couldnt state things right, there is some tiny possibility. In E too we can assume that people didnt recognize a mountain lion, and with no malice stated not there was a mountain lion, but in reality it could be some other animal. egmat MartyMurray
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,888
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,888
Farmer: Several people in the past few years have claimed to have seen 03 Oct 2025, 01:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Aishna1034
I agree here E is a weak weakener, but so is C. I mean in C also we are assuming that people might be on some drugs thats why they couldnt state things right, there is some tiny possibility. In E too we can assume that people didnt recognize a mountain lion, and with no malice stated not there was a mountain lion, but in reality it could be some other animal. egmat MartyMurray
Show more
Aishna1034

I can see you're wrestling with why (E) is better than (C) when both seem to cast some doubt on the sightings. This is actually a common point of confusion. My explanation may be a little detailed but just stay with me, you'll see where you're going wrong :)

The farmer's entire argument can be simplified to this:
  • Evidence: Several people have reported seeing a mountain lion.
  • Assumption: These reports are accurate.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, a mountain lion is present and managers must act.

To weaken this argument, we need to attack the assumption that the reports are accurate.

Why Choice (E) is an Ineffective Weakener

(E) Recent surveys show that more than half of the people in the region report that they have never seen a mountain lion before.

Your thinking was that if people have never seen one, they might not recognize it. While creative, this requires an extra assumption: that the people who made the reports are part of this group of people who have never seen one. The stimulus doesn't say that.

The core issue with (E) is that it's a statement about the general population, not the specific witnesses. Mountain lions are, by nature, rare and elusive. We would expect most people in any given region to have never seen one. This fact does nothing to discredit the specific claims of the few people who reported a sighting. It's like saying, "Most people have never won the lottery, so we should doubt the claim of the person who says they did." The two statements don't logically connect. Therefore, (E) has almost no impact on the argument's core.

Why Choice (C) is a Strong Weakener

(C) No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting.

This choice directly attacks the quality and reliability of the evidence. An uncorroborated eyewitness report is fundamentally less reliable than one confirmed by multiple people.

  • A lone witness could be mistaken.
  • A lone witness could be confused by another animal.
  • A lone witness's account cannot be independently verified.

Since the farmer's entire conclusion rests on these reports, showing that the reports are all uncorroborated and thus less reliable is a direct and powerful attack on the argument's foundation.

You mentioned assuming the person might be on drugs. It's important to avoid bringing in such outside information. The weakness of (C) doesn't rely on extreme assumptions like drug use; it relies on the simple, universally accepted principle that uncorroborated testimony is less credible than corroborated testimony.

Please go through this detailed explanation here. It will help you understand how to break down a CR passage and approach these kinds of questions.

C. Process Diagnosis

The main issue in your thought process was two-fold:
  1. For choice (E), you made a logical leap by connecting a general statistic about a population to the specific individuals mentioned in the evidence. On the GMAT, you must stick strictly to the information provided.
  2. For choice (C), you introduced an unnecessary and external assumption ("drugs") to explain the weakness, when the weakness was simpler and more direct (lack of corroboration).

The goal is always to find the choice that weakens the argument with the fewest extra assumptions. (C) weakens the argument directly by targeting the reliability of its evidence.
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts