Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0812:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Sep 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:30) correct
22%
(01:45)
wrong
based on 239
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen-starved and polluted Thames. Nor could many other species. But now, after years of determined effort, the salmon have returned, and that is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 939
A) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that, if true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
B) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that, if true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
C) is CORRECT ANSWER, because it strengthens the argument.
D) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that the salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain. If this is true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
E) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that there may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate. If this is true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
FINAL ANSWER IS (C)
B) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that, if true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
C) is CORRECT ANSWER, because it strengthens the argument.
D) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that the salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain. If this is true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
E) indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning that there may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate. If this is true, the Thames river is not pollution-free.
FINAL ANSWER IS (C)
Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen-starved and polluted Thames. Nor could many other species. But now, after years of determined effort, the salmon have returned, and that is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
We are looking for possible weakeners of the argument. One that does nothing is our answer.
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants. - WRONG. Suggests that Thames is still not pollution free. Pollutants still remain.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive. - WRONG. Due to determined efforts pollution reduced to a certain level that it tolerable by salmon but it can't be said that Thames is pollution free.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon. - CORRECT. Tells nothing new nor weakens the argument.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain. - WRONG. Other pollutants remain in Thames thus weakens the argument.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate. - WRONG. Clearly weakens the argument.
IMO Answer C.
_________________
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
We are looking for possible weakeners of the argument. One that does nothing is our answer.
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants. - WRONG. Suggests that Thames is still not pollution free. Pollutants still remain.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive. - WRONG. Due to determined efforts pollution reduced to a certain level that it tolerable by salmon but it can't be said that Thames is pollution free.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon. - CORRECT. Tells nothing new nor weakens the argument.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain. - WRONG. Other pollutants remain in Thames thus weakens the argument.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate. - WRONG. Clearly weakens the argument.
IMO Answer C.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA
Good Books to read prior to MBA
C is the right answer.
We are dealing with a cause and effect argument, and this cause and effect relationship is expressed within the conclusion of the argument. Cause: the salmon have returned. Effect: A sure sign that the river is pollution-free. Per the way the conclusion is drawn, we need an answer choice that provides an alternative reason for the return of the salmon in the Thames, suggesting that although the salmon have returned, it is not because the Thames is no longer polluted.
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants.
This is exactly in line with the reasoning above. So the salmon that are now in the Thames may be of a new strain that can withstand the current pollutants in the river. Not our answer.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive.
The conclusion is categorical. The river is pollution-free. So, B states that the pollution may have reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive, implying that the water is still polluted. Hence the argument is weakened. Not our answer.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon.
The conclusion drawn above is not dependent on oxygen starvation. So This answer choice is irrelevant, and hence it does not weaken the argument above. This is our answer.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain.
Well, as stated in B, the conclusion of the argument is categorical. The return of the salmon is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free. Now, C is telling us that the Salmon have returned because a particular type of pollutant that has now been removed was responsible for the death of the salmon. Hence now that that particular pollution has been gotten rid of, the river still has some other pollutants in it, hence not pollution-free. This option weakens the argument and can thus be discarded.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.
This option also suggests that the river is not pollution-free after all. It, therefore, weakens the argument, hence not our answer.
Quote:
We are dealing with a cause and effect argument, and this cause and effect relationship is expressed within the conclusion of the argument. Cause: the salmon have returned. Effect: A sure sign that the river is pollution-free. Per the way the conclusion is drawn, we need an answer choice that provides an alternative reason for the return of the salmon in the Thames, suggesting that although the salmon have returned, it is not because the Thames is no longer polluted.
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants.
This is exactly in line with the reasoning above. So the salmon that are now in the Thames may be of a new strain that can withstand the current pollutants in the river. Not our answer.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive.
The conclusion is categorical. The river is pollution-free. So, B states that the pollution may have reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive, implying that the water is still polluted. Hence the argument is weakened. Not our answer.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon.
The conclusion drawn above is not dependent on oxygen starvation. So This answer choice is irrelevant, and hence it does not weaken the argument above. This is our answer.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain.
Well, as stated in B, the conclusion of the argument is categorical. The return of the salmon is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free. Now, C is telling us that the Salmon have returned because a particular type of pollutant that has now been removed was responsible for the death of the salmon. Hence now that that particular pollution has been gotten rid of, the river still has some other pollutants in it, hence not pollution-free. This option weakens the argument and can thus be discarded.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.
This option also suggests that the river is not pollution-free after all. It, therefore, weakens the argument, hence not our answer.
chaitralirr
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Last visit: 07 Oct 2021
Posts: 361
Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE:Pharmaceuticals (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Posts: 361
Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen-starved and polluted Thames. Nor could many other species. But now, after years of determined effort, the salmon have returned, and that is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free.
Stimulus: The stimulus states that due to pollution the salmon could not survive in the Thames. After years of effort the salmon have returned which means the river is pollution free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants. This shows a flaw in reasoning stating that the Thames is still polluted
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive. Even though the pollution levels are reduced. The stimulus says Thames is pollution free
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon. Agrees with stimulus IMO C
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain. This gain refutes the authors point of pollution free Thames
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.Pollution exists
Stimulus: The stimulus states that due to pollution the salmon could not survive in the Thames. After years of effort the salmon have returned which means the river is pollution free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants. This shows a flaw in reasoning stating that the Thames is still polluted
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive. Even though the pollution levels are reduced. The stimulus says Thames is pollution free
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon. Agrees with stimulus IMO C
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain. This gain refutes the authors point of pollution free Thames
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.Pollution exists
Moderators:
Announcements
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.