Last visit was: 21 Jul 2024, 10:35 It is currently 21 Jul 2024, 10:35
Toolkit
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

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.

# In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1171
Own Kudos [?]: 20977 [28]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1426
Own Kudos [?]: 4603 [4]
Given Kudos: 1228
Location: India
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 3.36
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 456
Own Kudos [?]: 731 [1]
Given Kudos: 294
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Canteenbottle wrote:
C can't be right. No where in the question says extreme drought means absence of water. In fact, extreme drought just means more water will be extracted from the river.

Hey

The premise doesn't anywhere mention that extreme drought means 'more water will be extracted from the river' . This statement is assumption that you think

also, this question is an 'resolve the paradox' kind of question. So external ideas are allowed

Only C answers the question, rest are all out of scope
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 3.36
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
"in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes into rivers and more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation." this is the info from the question. It is not an assumption I made. No where in the question suggests absence of water. Lack of water and absence of water are two different concepts.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 456
Own Kudos [?]: 731 [2]
Given Kudos: 294
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Hey Canteenbottle (BTW, nice name)

I am only referring to the statement in the previous comment "extreme drought just means more water will be extracted from the river"

We don't see any such statement or reference in the premise. Anyways, you are absolutely spot on here. Lack of water and absence of water are two different concepts and tthiss tells us why C is the right choice

Lack of water (rivers flow slowly) - algae growth is much better
Absence of water (drought) - No water at all, how will the algae grow? Hence populations of algae drop in periods of extreme drought

hence answer is C. Hope this helps
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 686
Own Kudos [?]: 426 [1]
Given Kudos: 778
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
A, D and E are clearly out.

(B) The more slowly water moves, the more conducive its temperature is to the growth of algae.
This doesn't tell why algae population decrease, So it is not useful choice here.

(C) Algae cannot survive in the absence of water.
Water is essential for algae formation. According to stimulus, water level is low and flow is quite slow in drought condition.

So C is winning choice to resolve the paradox.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 236
Own Kudos [?]: 1006 [0]
Given Kudos: 1034
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
Thanks pikolo2510 and gvij2017 for your explanations!

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2018
Posts: 95
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 329
Location: Bouvet Island
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V30
GMAT 2: 670 Q50 V31
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 4: 490 Q39 V18
GPA: 4
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
In such type of questions we can bring in outside or new information.

Read slowly and observe carefully the last line "But, by contrast, populations of algae drop in periods of extreme drought."
Though the argument mostly talks about slow water flow during low level rainfall and its benefit to algae, in the last line it tries to bring in a contrast that happens in extreme drought. So we need to reason why algae is less in extreme drought. Making option C correct.

Also this shows how important POE is on verbal. If u use POE u will be left with C and even if you miss the details in last sentence, you should be able to arrive at C with just POE.

Hope it helps!
Manager
Joined: 22 Jan 2020
Posts: 66
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 303
GMAT 1: 730 Q43 V42
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
There are three levels of progression in this logic train.

DOWN in rain > DOWN in River levels and UP Irrigation

DOWN in river levels > DOWN in river velocity
Which leads to UP in algae

Would it be advisable to skip the middle steps mentally and go straight for the end result.

I feel like I wasted a minute just keeping track of the secondary and tertiary effects of the lower rain, when I didn't really need them.

In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes into rivers and more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation.

Consequently, in such years, water levels drop considerably and the rivers flow more slowly.

Because algae grow better the more slowly the water in which they are growing moves, such years are generally beneficial to populations of algae.??
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3507
Own Kudos [?]: 6981 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Andrewcoleman wrote:
There are three levels of progression in this logic train.

DOWN in rain > DOWN in River levels and UP Irrigation

DOWN in river levels > DOWN in river velocity
Which leads to UP in algae

Would it be advisable to skip the middle steps mentally and go straight for the end result.

I feel like I wasted a minute just keeping track of the secondary and tertiary effects of the lower rain, when I didn't really need them.

In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes into rivers and more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation.

Consequently, in such years, water levels drop considerably and the rivers flow more slowly.

Because algae grow better the more slowly the water in which they are growing moves, such years are generally beneficial to populations of algae.??

Hello, Andrewcoleman. I understand your frustration with CR questions. I used to feel the same way, falling into logic traps left and right. (Well, I was decent, but nowhere near as good as I was on other types of questions.) I would not advise ignoring any part of the passage, since you can never be sure what to expect of the answer choices and from which parts of the passage you may need to draw. One approach I learned the hard way that I have found much success with is reading the question first, before looking at anything in the passage. That way, I go in kind of knowing what to look for, and my pre-thinking cylinders are firing. Some time ago, I wrote another post on the general topic of CR questions, and this particular question, with an out-of-left-field answer, reminded me of one I wrote about in that post.

In this question, you are expecting all that information about slow-moving and fast-moving water to add up to something, but drought, a period of dryness, might lead to no water at all, especially if it is extreme, and if algae depend on at least some water to survive, then the extreme drought of the final line of the passage could be pointed to to explain why the algae that would typically thrive in slow-moving water would not do so under these particular weather conditions. Thus, the contrast or paradox of the question stem is resolved.

I would be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
Why D can not be answer . please see the below explanation.

Quote:
(D) Algae must be filtered out of water before it can be used for drinking.

drought means low rainfall for long period of time. it means the water level is too low.
As more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation it means the quantity of algae is reduced from water( because now more drinking and irrigation water would have high density of algae) , AND then Algae is filtered out of water before it can be used for drinking,

As drought increase, more algae is extracted in drinking water and hence more algae is thrown out which leads to less quantity of algae in the water.

Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1731
Own Kudos [?]: 5921 [2]
Given Kudos: 3122
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes into rivers and more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation. Consequently, in such years, water levels drop considerably and the rivers flow more slowly. Because algae grow better the more slowly the water in which they are growing moves, such years are generally beneficial to populations of algae. But, by contrast, populations of algae drop in periods of extreme drought.

P: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes into rivers and more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation
P: Consequently, in such years, water levels drop considerably and the rivers flow more slowly
P: Because algae grow better the more slowly the water in which they are growing moves, such years are generally beneficial to populations of algae
C: But, by contrast, populations of algae drop in periods of extreme drought

Long set up, but simple structure: less rains fall means less river water --> water levels drop --> water moves slower --> should be perfect for algae --> BUT, the opposite occurs. How do we resolve the fact that conditions are perfect, but the opposite occurred? There are too many reason to think, but this is what we need to think about as we go through each answer choice.

Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the contrast?

(A) Algae grow better in ponds and lakes than in rivers. -- Who cares? We are only concerned with growth rate in rivers; this is an irrelevant comparison because rivers and lakes are not the same. Out.

(B) The more slowly water moves, the more conducive its temperature is to the growth of algae. -- OK, so this strengthens the idea that the algae should grow faster. But again, our algae does the opposite. So this is like an additional premise, but it still has no impact on our argument. Out.

(C) Algae cannot survive in the absence of water. -- Interesting. If the water is completely gone, the algae cannot survive. Hold this on first pass and come back to it. And now that you've come back, this is our answer. I will admit I dislike it, but the rest are so out of scope that this has to be it. If there is no water, which is a negative, then the algae can't grow and that helps resolve our issue. The river goes too far in the direction the algae need and instead becomes unsuitable for growth. I dislike that we have to assume in this instance, for the argument, that the river becomes dry, but it is what it is.

(D) Algae must be filtered out of water before it can be used for drinking. -- OK, but who cares? We are told that algae has to be taken out before the water can be used. But what does this have to do with our argument? If you guessed this, you were assuming that in years with more water that rivers aren't used as much for drinking water. But water is used no matter what, so the algae is filtered out no matter what. Further, how much is filtered out? Maybe no algae makes its way into the water, but the algae is poisonous so we have to filter it out if it gets in? Maybe it's one strand a year and because the algae is strong it never breaks away. Both these situations would have no impact on the population. And because we cannot make any assumptions, this is out.

(E) The larger the population of algae in a body of water, the less sunlight reaches below the surface of the water. -- But we do not care about sunlight. Where are we told about algae growth compared to sunlight? And where are we told that too much algae can hurt their growth? It is never explained, so we cannot use it. Don't make any assumptions to justify this answer.
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Status:No dream is too large, no dreamer is too small
Posts: 959
Own Kudos [?]: 5019 [0]
Given Kudos: 690
Concentration: Accounting
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
Top Contributor
Canteenbottle wrote:
"in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes into rivers and more water is extracted from rivers for drinking and irrigation." this is the info from the question. It is not an assumption I made. No where in the question suggests absence of water. Lack of water and absence of water are two different concepts.

Drought means a period of dryness and one that causes extensive damage to crops or prevents their successful growth.

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Posts: 542
Own Kudos [?]: 73 [0]
Given Kudos: 623
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
I would be so appreciative if an expert can weigh in on my reasoning, as I was stuck between Choice B and C.

For Choice B, if a drought occurred, then water would move even more slowly = an even more conducive temperature for algae growth.

But this isn't the case. There is a level in which the algae just die off. So, although water that moves very slowly is ideal, algae can only survive up to the point in which there IS water.
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos [?]: 510 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
1
Kudos
woohoo921 wrote:
I would be so appreciative if an expert can weigh in on my reasoning, as I was stuck between Choice B and C.

B is unhelpful because the passage text already tells us that algae grow better in slower-moving water. B offers only a possible reason WHY this might be true, by filling in the missing link of a specific mechanism whereby this correlation might operate.

In other words, the knowledge in the original text is
slower-moving water [—> ??? unknown mechanism ??? —>] better algae growth

and B just fills in the missing step,
slower-moving water —> better temperature for algae —> better algae growth

...which has no effect on the argument. Nothing depends on whether the correlation between slow water and algae growth works (or doesn't) by way of any specific mechanism, temperature or otherwise.

MUCH more importantly, the main issue that NEEDS to be addressed—because the initial passage text presents NO REASON AT ALL for it—is the observation that, after growing more and more and more, the algae just VANISH once drought surpasses a certain intensity.
B leaves this issue unaddressed, while instead providing superfluous explanation for a correlation whose existence is already established from the outset.

C, on the other hand, explains the sudden vanishing of the algae perfectly: It happens when drought conditions become intense enough to dry up ALL of the water for some period of time, instantly killing the algae (which live in water and therefore 'drown' without it).
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17528
Own Kudos [?]: 869 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
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.
Re: In Australia, in years with below-average rainfall, less water goes in [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6990 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts