In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell

Question

In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell of the bones is porous. This has the effect of making the bones light enough so that it is easy for the animals to swim back to the surface after a deep dive. The outer shell of the bones was also porous in the ichthyosaur, an extinct prehistoric marine reptile. We can conclude from this that ichthyosaurs were deep divers.

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

(A) Some deep-diving marine species must surface after dives but do not have bones with porous outer shells.
(B) In most modern marine reptile species, the outer shell of the bones is not porous.
(C) In most modern and prehistoric marine reptile species that are not deep divers, the outer shell of the bones is porous.
(D) In addition to the porous outer shells of their bones, whales have at least some characteristics suited to deep diving for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs.
(E) There is evidence that the bones of ichthyosaurs would have been light enough to allow surfacing even if the outer shells were not porous.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Split the argument into premises and conclusion.

Premises:
In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell of the bones is porous. 
It helps them swim back to the surface after a deep dive. 
The outer shell of the bones was also porous in the ichthyosaur.

Conclusion: ichthyosaurs were deep divers.

Based on the porous bones, we are concluding that Ichthy were deep divers. So we are saying that porous bones implies deep divers. We are saying that all porous bone marine animals were deep divers. We are not saying that all deep divers must have porous bones. We are saying that all animals with porous bones must be deep sea divers - that porous bones are sufficient to lead to deep sea diving. Because we are given porous bones, we are concluding deep sea diving.

We need to weaken this conclusion.

(A) Some deep-diving marine species must surface after dives but do not have bones with porous outer shells.

Doesn't impact our conclusion. We are not saying that all deep sea divers must have porous bones. 
We are saying the opposite - that porous bones marine animals must be deep sea divers.

(B) In most modern marine reptile species, the outer shell of the bones is not porous.

We are talking about deep sea divers. Irrelevant.

(C) In most modern and prehistoric marine reptile species that are not deep divers, the outer shell of the bones is porous.

This tells us that porous bones are found in non deep sea divers too. So porous bones does not necessarily mean deep sea divers. This weakens our conclusion.

(D) In addition to the porous outer shells of their bones, whales have at least some characteristics suited to deep diving for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs.

Irrelevant. We are establishing the connection between porous bones and deep sea diving only.

(E) There is evidence that the bones of ichthyosaurs would have been light enough to allow surfacing even if the outer shells were not porous.

Our argument does not say that porous bones are necessary for deep sea diving. It says that they are sufficient. It says that porous bones implies deep sea divers. Other things could also lead to surfacing after deep sea diving. This would weaken our conclusion if we were concluding that porous bones are necessary for deep sea diving. But we are not concluding that. Hence not correct.

Answer (C)

Akash720 · Answer

+1 for C

Conclusion: 
Ichthyosaurs were deep divers.
 Reason: 
The outer shell of the bones was also porous in the ichthyosaur

(C) In most modern and prehistoric marine reptile species that are not deep divers, the outer shell of the bones is porous.
 --> This weakens the argument as it gives us an example in which there were marine species who were not deep divers and still had outer shell porous bones.

gvij2017 · Answer

I think D is wrong because the unavailability of evidences doesn't means that few special characteristic of whale were not shared by ichthyosaurs.

C is absolutely correct.

gmatkillerdude · Answer

I am confused between C and D. I dont understand how to choose between the two. Why is D wrong?

Utkarshsh · Answer

Gmat Ninja, can you please explain why D is wrong and C is correct ? The reason I didnt choose C is that it has the word 'most'. That means ichthyosaur can be an exception.

Vinodsai1995 · Answer

I chose C. But i want to know why D is wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

shubham1985 · Answer

Argument :
Deep Diving mammals --> Porous outer shell of the bones --> Swim back to surface after a deep dive

Conclusion : 
Porous outer shell of the bones in ichthyosaur --> Deep Divers

So, the conclusion is that ichthyosaurs are Deep Divers and the evidence is that 
they have porous outer shell of the bones.
In order to weaken this conclusion, we must hit the missing link between the evidence and the conclusion.

C says that most of the non deep divers have porous outer shell of the bones. Not a conclusion breaker but certainly
weakens the conclusion to a large extent.

D says In addition to porous outer shell of the bones, whales have some other characteristics that help them to deep dive.
Now,Firstly this choice talks about some characteristics that helps whales to deep dive (not the sole reason for them to become deep divers).
Now, irrespective of whether these characteristics are present in ichthyosaur, we cannot prove that ichthyosaur are not deep divers.
Can you say that since ichthyosaur does not have these characteristics, so they are not deep divers ? No,right ?
This choice is actually leaving you with a lot of confusion in mind.

It is important to attack the missing link and C exactly does that.

AKY13 · Answer

Hi gmatkillerdude
D says there is no clear evidence WHETHER the other attributes were present in icthyosaurs. D is doubtful about the presence of attributes. C is better in clearly stating a weakness of the argument. 
D could have become a strong contender had it been written as below -

(D) In addition to the porous outer shells of their bones, whales have at least some characteristics suited to deep diving for which there  ARE SOME evidenceS  THAT these were shared by ichthyosaurs.

Hope this helps.

Skywalker18 · Answer

In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell of the bones is porous. This has the effect of making the bones light enough so that it is easy for the animals to swim back to the surface after a deep dive. The outer shell of the bones was also porous in the ichthyosaur, an extinct prehistoric marine reptile. We can conclude from this that ichthyosaurs were deep divers.

Type-weakens
Core- ichthyosaurs were deep divers because they have the same sort of porous bone structure that modern deep divers have, a structure that allows deep diving. 
Pre-thinking- Maybe these porous bone structures helped ichthyosaurs in some other way- they could swim faster

(A) Some deep-diving marine species must surface after dives but do not have bones with porous outer shells.- Out of scope- it talks about species that do not have bones with porous outer shells
(B) In most modern marine reptile species, the outer shell of the bones is not porous.- Irrelevant
(C) In most modern and prehistoric marine reptile species that are not deep divers, the outer shell of the bones is porous.- Correct
(D) In addition to the porous outer shells of their bones, whales have at least some characteristics suited to deep diving for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs.- incorrect; Just because there is no evidence, it does not mean the phenomenon doesn't exist.
(E) There is evidence that the bones of ichthyosaurs would have been light enough to allow surfacing even if the outer shells were not porous.- incorrect; it says that the ichthyosaurs probably didn't even need porous bones

Answer C

Hoozan · Answer

KarishmaB  please could you help me with (A) and (E). While I understand why (C) is the answer I was not confident with eliminating (A) and (E)

Argument 
1. The puter shell of the bones of modern deep-diving marine mammals is porous.
2. Porosity makes bones light, helping the animals to swim back to the surface after a deep dive.
3. Ichthyosaur, an extinct prehistoric marine reptile, had porous bones

Conclusion:  Ichthyosaurs were deep divers.

Question:  Weaken

We see a correlation between porous bones and deep divers. Based on this correlation we are making a conclusion.

Why (A) is not the answer:  This choice talks about species that do not have porous outer shells WHILE we are concerned with species WITH porous outer shells. We could have a situation such that all porous outer shell species are deep divers while some non-porous outer shell species are deep divers. Thus if Ichthyosaurs have porous outer shells then the conclusion can be drawn.

Doubt with (A):   The argument shows a correlation between porous outer shells and deep divers. But the conclusion depends on the causation i.e. porous outer shells --> Deep diving. So doesn't (A) showcase that porous outer shells are not needed for deep diving, thereby breaking the causation and thus showing that despite seeing the presence of porous outer shells one cannot conclude that the Ichthyosaurs were deep divers? Hence can't (A) be a weakener??

Doubt with (E):   Porous out bone shells help make the bone light and thus help the (deep diving) species to float up. Seeing the presence of porous bone shells, the conclusion is drawn. But now (E) reduces the importance of the presence of porous bone shells. By showing that the ichthyosaurs already had light bones to surface up, this choice shows that porous bone shells were not needed for the species to be deep divers. Hence seeing porous bone shells (not a necessary factor) we cannot conclude that the ichthyosaurs were deep divers.

unraveled · Answer

In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell of the bones is porous. This has the effect of making the bones light enough so that it is easy for the animals to swim back to the surface after a deep dive. The outer shell of the bones was also porous in the ichthyosaur, an extinct prehistoric marine reptile. We can conclude from this that ichthyosaurs were deep divers.

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

(A) Some deep-diving marine species must surface after dives but do not have bones with porous outer shells. - WRONG. First, we don't know whether 'some' includes ichthyosaurs or not. Even if it is, not having porous bones does not proves they were deep divers. Second, if ichthyosaurs are not included then the options falls flat - it is not at all near anywhere to core of the argument. 
(B) In most modern marine reptile species, the outer shell of the bones is not porous. - WRONG. Irrelevant. 
(C) In most modern and prehistoric marine reptile species that are not deep divers, the outer shell of the bones is porous. - CORRECT. The word 'most' helps us know that ichthyosaurs could have been exception, thus weakening the argument. 
(D) In addition to the porous outer shells of their bones, whales have at least some characteristics suited to deep diving for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs. - WRONG. It slightly looks like to weaken the argument, however, it is not. If whales have other characteristics that help it deep dive, it does not mean ichthyosaurs could not have been deep divers. Had that characteristic been in ichthyosaurs, it would have made sense. At best this is irrelevant for it does not tell anything about ichthyosaurs' being deep divers. 
(E) There is evidence that the bones of ichthyosaurs would have been light enough to allow surfacing even if the outer shells were not porous. - WRONG. What this gives is just another parameter similar to porosity but does not help at all, even minutely, that whether ichthyosaurs were deep divers or not.

Answer C.

kittle · Answer

KarishmaB - HAND ON HEART, your explanations are so so so amazing !!! Thanks for all contributions here on the platform. Really appreciate the answer. I have consistently noticed your explanation are so easy to follow.

KarishmaB · Answer

I am thrilled to hear this kittle I discussed some CR questions in my yesterday evening's webinar. I have put up a couple of them on YouTube. You can check them out here: https://youtu.be/tnFX99OpyYs?feature=shared You might enjoy them!

egmat · Answer

Great breakdown of the argument! You're thinking about causation correctly, but there's a subtle  direction issue  that's tripping you up.

The Key Distinction: Necessity vs. Sufficiency 
The argument claims:  Seeing porous shells =  sufficient evidence  to conclude deep diving

Common mistake:  Both  (A)  and  (E)  attack whether porous shells are  necessary  for deep diving. But the argument never claimed porous shells are necessary - it claimed they're  sufficient evidence .

Think of it this way: 
 Argument pattern:  "Basketball players are tall. John is tall. Therefore, John is a basketball player."

(A) equivalent:  "Some basketball players are short" → Attacks  necessity . Doesn't help - we're not claiming height is required, we're claiming height    indicates    basketball.

(C) equivalent:  "Most tall people are NOT basketball players" → Attacks  sufficiency .  This works!  If most tall people aren't basketball players, then being tall doesn't let you conclude someone plays basketball.

For (A) specifically:

You wrote that (A) "breaks the causation by showing porous shells aren't needed." But the argument's logic isn't "ichthyosaurs  needed  porous shells to deep dive." It's "porous shells  tell us  they were deep divers." Showing other species can deep dive without porous shells doesn't change what porous shells  indicate .

For (E) specifically:

(E) shows ichthyosaurs could have light bones without porosity. But the argument doesn't claim porosity was the  only way  to get light bones. The argument uses porosity as a  marker/indicator  of deep diving - not as the sole mechanism. Whether they "needed" the porosity is beside the point.

The pattern to remember:

When an argument says "X indicates Y," the weakener must show "X doesn't reliably indicate Y"  (maybe X appears without Y). Showing "Y can happen without X" attacks  necessity , which is a different claim.

(C)  nails this  by showing porous shells appear in non-deep-divers—so seeing porous shells doesn't let you conclude deep diving.

Answer: C

Hope this creates clarity!

eaat · Answer

In this question, I chose C, which weakens the argument. The argument is concluding that this prehistoric mammal is a deep diver because of its porous outer bones. This is saying that porous outer bones are also found in other animals who are not deep divers, and thus, therefore, this weakens the conclusion

In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In modern deep-diving marine mammals, such as whales, the outer shell

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards