GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 14 Dec 2018, 21:19

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• Typical Day of a UCLA MBA Student - Recording of Webinar with UCLA Adcom and Student

December 14, 2018

December 14, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Carolyn and Brett - nicely explained what is the typical day of a UCLA student. I am posting below recording of the webinar for those who could't attend this session.
• Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

December 15, 2018

December 15, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 746
In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 14:26
2
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:33) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 195 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people killed by alligators in Florida. During this same time, there has been an increase in the development of new houses, golf courses, and shopping areas in former wilderness areas within the state. Therefore, the increase in fatal alligator attacks must have been caused by the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation above?

Two years ago, a government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.

An increase in fatal alligator attacks tends to make people more cautious around lakes, ponds, swamps and canals.

The number of people killed by snake bites, spider bites and scorpion stings in Florida has held steady for many years.

Many of the new state residents have moved to newly constructed areas near water that is suitable for habitation by alligators.

The undeveloped areas of Florida have decreased in area by 5% in the past year.
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 886
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 14:40
1
IMO C.
Wildrness holds Snakes, Spiders, and Scorpions in addtion to alligator. If attacks from alligator is rising then attacks from these animals should rise proportionately. But as C says, attacks from this animals not rising. So weakens the case.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 287
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 14:46
POE gives me C. IMO C

All others A, B, D, E strengthen the conclusion. However, I have no good explanation why C might be correct.
VP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1448
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 14:54
1
i would say A for this one actually; we have to attack the conclusion that more attacks have been due to people moving into alligators habitat. To me, I interpreted A as saying that if the eggs are no longer destroyed, you could have an increased population, which thereby could result in the increase in number of attacks
Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 746
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 15:06
Since you 2 are gmat heavyweights, I will just go ahead and give the OA, it is A.

C is not correct because Spiders, and Scorpions attacks are usually not FATAL, and snake bites are fatal, but only when go untreated. Whereas attacks by grown alligators are usually fatal (if you can't escape).

This is where MGMAT messed up. They gave A as the OA, but it can't be true either, because we all know that 2 years old alligator can't fatally injury people, not even babies, because their jaws are not big/strong enough to kill a baby, let alone toddlers or grown up. The babies can die from unmonitored bleeding, but how likely is that?
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 287
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 15:13
gmatnub wrote:
Since you 2 are gmat heavyweights, I will just go ahead and give the OA, it is A.

C is not correct because Spiders, and Scorpions attacks are usually not FATAL, and snake bites are fatal, but only when go untreated. Whereas attacks by grown alligators are usually fatal (if you can't escape).

This is where MGMAT messed up. They gave A as the OA, but it can't be true either, because we all know that 2 years old alligator can't fatally injury people, not even babies, because their jaws are not big/strong enough to kill a baby, let alone toddlers or grown up. The babies can die from unmonitored bleeding, but how likely is that?

I understand your explanation, however, maybe the Q is structured worng and is debateable. Normally in CR you cannot bring too extreme external assumptions into play.

Thanks.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3232
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 15:22
i went for A as well..

A gives an alternative reason..maybe now that eggs are not being destroyed there are more alligators thus more attacks..
Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 746
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 15:27
x97agarwal wrote:
gmatnub wrote:
Since you 2 are gmat heavyweights, I will just go ahead and give the OA, it is A.

C is not correct because Spiders, and Scorpions attacks are usually not FATAL, and snake bites are fatal, but only when go untreated. Whereas attacks by grown alligators are usually fatal (if you can't escape).

This is where MGMAT messed up. They gave A as the OA, but it can't be true either, because we all know that 2 years old alligator can't fatally injury people, not even babies, because their jaws are not big/strong enough to kill a baby, let alone toddlers or grown up. The babies can die from unmonitored bleeding, but how likely is that?

I understand your explanation, however, maybe the Q is structured worng and is debateable. Normally in CR you cannot bring too extreme external assumptions into play.

Thanks.

That is my point, 2 years old alligators can not kill people. All that will happen in A is that you would have a bunch of yearling alligators around, which are harmless to people, or at least can not deal fatal attacks.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jul 2008, 12:47
A is best among all the ans. choices
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 356
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Dec 2013, 19:29
x97agarwal wrote:
POE gives me C. IMO C

All others A, B, D, E strengthen the conclusion. However, I have no good explanation why C might be correct.
Guys, how does E strengthen the argument?
If the undeveloped areas of Florida decreases in area by 5% in the past year, then alligator population should also decrease. And so will decrease their attacks. Shouldn't it be so?
Current Student
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 74
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Dec 2013, 15:15
joshnsit wrote:
x97agarwal wrote:
POE gives me C. IMO C

All others A, B, D, E strengthen the conclusion. However, I have no good explanation why C might be correct.
Guys, how does E strengthen the argument?
If the undeveloped areas of Florida decreases in area by 5% in the past year, then alligator population should also decrease. And so will decrease their attacks. Shouldn't it be so?

Hi Joshnsit - I think that your flow of reasoning is somehow compelling, but the most importnat thing in a weaken question is to focus on conclusion. The conclusion for this argument states that the increase in alligator attacks is caused by humans living in the animal's habitat. Therefore, I suppose that a decrease in undeveloped areas means more humans living in the animal's habitat.

I hope it helps,
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 356
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: CR: fatal alligator attacks  [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Dec 2013, 03:08
nechets wrote:
joshnsit wrote:
x97agarwal wrote:
POE gives me C. IMO C

All others A, B, D, E strengthen the conclusion. However, I have no good explanation why C might be correct.
Guys, how does E strengthen the argument?
If the undeveloped areas of Florida decreases in area by 5% in the past year, then alligator population should also decrease. And so will decrease their attacks. Shouldn't it be so?

Hi Joshnsit - I think that your flow of reasoning is somehow compelling, but the most importnat thing in a weaken question is to focus on conclusion. The conclusion for this argument states that the increase in alligator attacks is caused by humans living in the animal's habitat. Therefore, I suppose that a decrease in undeveloped areas means more humans living in the animal's habitat.

I hope it helps,
nechets, I understand where you are coming from.
X= increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
Y = increase in fatal alligator attacks
The causality conclusion says: X ---Causes---> Y -----------(1)

If any another Cause X causes Y, then as per alternate causation theory, conclusion weakens.
Choice A says "a government initiative" ----Causes---->Y. Therefore it weakens causality conclusion in (1)
I agree with it. It completely fits the bill.

Another ways to weaken causality, as per CR Bible, are :
1) Prove that X happen when Y dont happen
2) Prove that Y happen when X dont happen
3) Prove that Y is causing X
4) Prove that there is some statistical issues

Now, Choice E says "Decrease in alligator attacks" is happening. This should weaken Y. In a weaken question, one has a right to attack premises(Y to be specific), and I tried doing that. This is an MGMAT problem and I am getting so many dubious/detracting choices which are hard to eliminate as per CR rules.

But what I am more concerned is that this choice has been told as a strengthener in their analysis and it is opposite of what was deciphered by me. So, any ideas in what sense can E become a strengthener.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 291
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Dec 2013, 04:59
2
CONCLUSION- increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat-----LEADS TO ----- increase in fatal alligator attacks.

"A" correctly brings out [b]--------INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ALLIGATORS --- leads to------ INCREASE IN FATAL ALLIGATOR ATTACKS...[/b]

" E" just mentions what is already in the premise.....We know that human habitat is extending to undeveloped areas...ONLY a 5% factor has been added........ How can merely repeating a premise strengthen or weaken an argument ? " E" , therefore , makes no difference...................

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 356
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Dec 2013, 05:25
semwal wrote:
CONCLUSION- increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat-----LEADS TO ----- increase in fatal alligator attacks.

"A" correctly brings out [b]--------INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ALLIGATORS --- leads to------ INCREASE IN FATAL ALLIGATOR ATTACKS...[/b]

" E" just mentions what is already in the premise.....We know that human habitat is extending to undeveloped areas...ONLY a 5% factor has been added........ How can merely repeating a premise strengthen or weaken an argument ? " E" , therefore , makes no difference...................

semwal ji, You rock.. Your statement about E finally dawned enlightenment on troublesome me on this question. E actually supports the fact X(increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat). And I think this is what MGMAT suggests when they say E as supporter.
X= increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.
Y = increase in fatal alligator attacks
The causality conclusion says: X ---Causes---> Y -----------(1)

Still, I didn't like the choice E as E supports premise X and destroys premise Y(because it indicate reduction in number of alligators in another sense) at the same time. But, I agree that causal conclusion weakener choice A is way better than E.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 291
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Dec 2013, 05:41
DEAR JOSHNSIT,

The only issue with "A" is that we have to extend our imagination.... since destruction of eggs has ended.... more baby alligators MAY be taking birth.... this MAY be leading to extended population which MAY be leading to more fatal attacks on humans.....
however, increasing population may be leading to extension in inhabited areas.... and this itself, in first place, could have been the reason for destruction of eggs which has been stopped now.....therefore, this is a strong option....

Intern
Joined: 10 Jun 2014
Posts: 23
Re: In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Oct 2014, 19:41
A for me too.

I think B&D strengthen and C&E are out of scope
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Posts: 10
In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Oct 2017, 04:13
OA is A

We need to provide another reason to weaken the argument.

The number of people killed by alligators may have increased in the past year for some reason other than the increase in the number of humans living in the alligator’s habitat.

(A) This statement properly identifies an alternative rationale (there are more alligators now) and undermines the given explanation.

However,

(C) This point about differing types of harmful wildlife is irrelevant to the argument about alligator fatalities.
Intern
Joined: 21 May 2017
Posts: 16
Re: In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the  [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Nov 2018, 20:54
I would go for A.

A weakens the conclusion by providing another reason for the increase in fatal deaths by alligators because the government initiative to reduce the alligator population size by destroying alligator eggs ended.
Re: In the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in the &nbs [#permalink] 21 Nov 2018, 20:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by