Feathers recently taken from seabirds stuffed and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LdXSJwF2NA

the analysis of the argument was perfect

As you see there is a big scope shift. The assumption that should straight popup in your head is "Mercury in saltwater fish is directly responsible for the mercury in the bird's feather" . That's how you can draw the conclusion.

Hope this helps!

Skywalker18, you nailed it!

We are specifically told that the "mercury that accumulates in a seabird’s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird." Although we aren't given the exact mercury levels in the fish, we can infer that, all else equal, increasing the amount of fish eaten would increase mercury levels in the feathers. Also, increasing the mercury levels in the fish would likely increase mercury levels in the feathers.

And, yes, your highlighted assumptions (variations of choice A and choice D) would be valid assumptions. If either of those highlighted assumptions were not true, the argument would fall apart. You deserve a cookie.

Hey nightblade354

Please add the LSAT tag

Thanks

Pre-thinking:

Conclusion: Mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago.

Premises on which it is based:
i) Mercury that accumulates in a seabird’s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird.
ii) Feathers recently taken from seabirds stuffed and preserved in the 1880s have been found to contain only half as much mercury as feathers recently taken from living birds of the same species.

Prima facie the argument seems to make sense. If mercury in the feathers derives from fish eaten, and recent feathers have more mercury, it is logical to suggest that fish now have more mercury. Therefore, in order to find an assumption, we are looking for one of the following:

1) Rule out an alternate explanation.
2) Rule out a correlation (a third variable that influences both time and mercury in feathers).

Let us examine the answers:

(A) the proportion of a seabird’s diet consisting of fish was not as high, on average, in the 1880s as it is today This is worth considering. If mercury comes from fish, and the seabirds are eating more fish today, it is possible that this has led to more mercury. However, this assumes that the other portion of the diet does not contain any mercury. For now, we can hold on to this option.

(B) the amount of mercury in a saltwater fish depends on the amount of pollution in the ocean habitat of the fish This does not address the mercury in the feathers at all. Irrelevant. Eliminate.

(C) mercury derived from fish is essential for the normal growth of a seabird’s feathers This does not address the difference in the mercury levels in the feathers at all. Eliminate.

(D) the stuffed seabirds whose feathers were tested for mercury were not fully grown We know nothing about levels of mercury in the feathers of juvenile and adult seabirds. Out of scope. Eliminate.

(E) the process used to preserve birds in the 1880s did not substantially decrease the amount of mercury in the birds’ feathers Correct answer. This clearly rules out an alternate explanation for the different levels of mercury.

Since (E) is a much cleaner option, we can eliminate option (A).

Hope this helps.

hi

its fairly easy problem, and like everyone, I also got it right, but...
I was wondering if you could tell me whether the way I have eliminated "C" is okay

Assumption is an unstated premise, but the premise that "C" states is clearly stated in the argument, so it cannot be an unstated premise, so I have ruled it out. Is that okay ..?

thanks in advance, man

Went with E


(E) the process used to preserve birds in the 1880s did not substantially decrease the amount of mercury in the birds’ feather.

The argument has to consider the answer E before making the statement "mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago"

Hi gmatcracker2018,
I don't think C is stated in the argument.

(C) mercury derived from fish is essential for the normal growth of a seabird’s feathers - Incorrect

mercury that accumulates in a seabird’s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird -- We can't infer that mercury is essential for the normal growth based on this sentence.

GMATNinja nightblade354 VeritasPrepKarishma pikolo2510 generis

Can you help me to understand the argument?



Birds from today have 100 mg of mercury (for e.g) than those that lived in 1980 who had
50 mg of mercury. Both birds are of same species.


Mercury found in birds' feathers is derived from fish that birds eat.
There is a direct linear relationship between accumulation of mercury in feathers and
amount of fish that birds eat.

Final conclusion:
mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago.

Here is where I faltered? What a scope shift from birds to fish in the argument? I am nowwhere given
a hint to relate mercury level in fish. It is the birds that eat fish, how do I know mercury levels in fish and to
what do I co-relate it to?

adkikani, the above explanations are good. As for me, I simply negated (E):

(E) the process used to preserve birds in the 1880s did substantially decrease the amount of mercury in the birds’ feathers

If this is the statement, then the argument completely falls apart, and hence is the answer. Negation is always great on assumptions questions!

Thank you GMATNinja sir for your kind words

(E) the process used to preserve birds in the 1880s did not substantially decrease the amount of mercury in the birds’ feathers

Negate this option:-
The process used to preserve birds in the 1880s DID SUBSTANTIALLY decrease the amount of mercury in the birds’ feathers.
This will make the argument fall apart.
If the mercury levels were altered deliberately, the comparison between birds of 1880s and birds of today becomes absurd.

@


But don't you think that when you negate B that also makes sense?
The amount of mercury in a saltwater fish does not depend on the the amount of pollution in the ocean habitat of the fish.

Please help

Hi,

Here you are assuming that pollution is changed from the time period of 1880 to 1980, nothing sort of that information is provided in the passage.

Feathers recently taken from seabirds stuffed and preserved in the 1880s have been found to contain only half as much mercury as feathers recently taken from living birds of the same species. Since mercury that accumulates in a seabird???s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird, these results indicate that mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago.

The argument depends on assuming that

(A) the proportion of a seabird???s diet consisting of fish was not as high, on average, in the 1880s as it is today

(B) the amount of mercury in a saltwater fish depends on the amount of pollution in the ocean habitat of the fish

(C) mercury derived from fish is essential for the normal growth of a seabird???s feathers

(D) the stuffed seabirds whose feathers were tested for mercury were not fully grown

(E) the process used to preserve birds in the 1880s did not substantially decrease the amount of mercury in the birds??? feathers
I have a doubt why option A is not the answer and how does it weakens the argument and affects the main conclusion. how should we with such type of options.
THANK YOU

Hi,
please explain why A is wrong. If the proportion of diet is sholuld be same then only it is possible that the fishes in the comparision may have same mercury. IF we consider E, it is saying preservation decreased the mercury level substantially but it is not clear that whether the preservation has decreased it from same level.(The level found in feathers recently).
Please clear my confusion

thanks

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.