Verbal Question of the Day Chat Group

I am also thinking about buying it

VERBAL QUESTION OF THE DAY | June 26, 2024 | QUESTION TYPE - RESOLVE THE PARADOX | DIFFICULTY LEVEL - MODERATE TO HARD it-was-widely-speculated-that-business-at-the-treatery-431659.html

please explain the 3rd question: in-1960-historian-clement-eaton-argued-that-in-the-pre-civil-war-427089.html

Critical Reasoning Butler: June 2024
June 26	CR 1	CR 2

­

Guillemots are birds of Arctic regions. They feed on fish that gather beneath thin sheets of floating ice, and they nest on nearby land. Guillemots need 80 consecutive snow-free days in a year to raise their chicks, so until average temperatures in the Arctic began to rise recently, the guillemots’ range was limited to the southernmost Arctic coast. Therefore, if the warming continues, the guillemots’ range will probably be enlarged by being extended northward along the coast.

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

(A) Even if the warming trend continues, there will still be years in which guillemot chicks are killed by an unusually early snow.

(B) If the Arctic warming continues, guillemots’ current predators are likely to succeed in extending their own range farther north.

(C) Guillemots nest in coastal areas, where temperatures are generally higher than in inland areas.

(D) If the Arctic warming continues, much of the thin ice in the southern Arctic will disappear.

(E) The fish that guillemots eat are currently preyed on by a wider variety of predators in the southernmost Arctic regions than they are farther north.

Need explanation

­
Search!

https://gmatclub.com/forum/guillemots-a ... 82065.html

The conclusion is that G will expand its range and expand to the north. (Two aspects, one is that the territory in the south is still preserved, and the other is that it can expand to the north)
a: Snow does not affect the expansion to the north, or it may have a large number, and it will snow after the expansion. No impact.
b: As the weather continues to warm, G’s predators will also successfully expand northward. (I have always chosen this wrong)
According to the explanation of the great god Ron on prep: The number of predators is related to the number of prey. The expansion of predators to the north further proves that G has expanded to the north.
c: The temperature in the inland is irrelevant.
d: If the warming continues, the thin ice will melt. This way G cannot hunt, for example, he used to stand on thin ice to eat fish, but now he can’t. Not to mention expanding to the north. Weakened. (Correct)
e: There are more predators in the south than in the north, so G should go to the north. Strengthened.

So choose d!!!

If the Arctic warming continues, much of the thin ice in the southern Arctic will disappear.

I think it strengthen because ice at souther will disappear so more reason to move to north

The point of the argument is that "the guillemots’ range will probably be enlarged." We’re not concerned with decreasing the number of guillemots, only the size of their range. The author’s reasoning is that their range will expand as the bird moves northward.

The author assumes that the bird will only add to its range as it moves northward. Choice (D) suggests that the northward expansion will come with a decrease in the range along the southern coast (if the thin ice disappears, the fish that gather under the thin ice might have to move northward). Although this doesn’t necessarily disprove the author’s point, it’s seriously weakens the argument. Hang on to this one.

I see now thanks
The point of the argument is that "the guillemots’ range will probably be enlarged."

Critical Reasoning Butler: June 2024
June 27	CR 1	CR 2

­

QUESTION OF THE DAY | ASSUMPTION | DIFFICULTY LEVEL: MODERATE | CR | JULY 27, 2024 - a-recent-research-has-revealed-that-people-who-experience-hairfall-431732.html

Reason cause and effects reversed

Correct!

So, option A has to be an assumption for the argument to be considered valid.

What if we negate option B?
If there are other hormones that could cause tremors then wouldn’t the conclusion that high levels of hormone X cause tremors get weakened?

Nullbyte if there are other hormones causing it doesn’t weaken because a disease can be caused from two possible reason. Other reason doesn’t weaken the first cause

Like heart attack can come cholestrol / stress. Stress doesn’t weaken the cholesterol cause

But we don’t know if hormone X is a cause of tremor or not. We are assuming that just because they are present together

For example if you say "yesterday Henry drank cold water and he got sick today so cold water must have caused the sickness".
But here we are assuming that nothing else caused the sickness