Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 06:27 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 06:27
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 (Hard)|   Weaken|               
User avatar
shrgmat
User avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2020
Last visit: 25 Dec 2021
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
19
 [1]
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 35
Kudos: 19
 [1]
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 10 Nov 2021, 22:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Well, I chose B but gmac says it’s E.
I am not convinced as the prompt asks for the weakness of suggested plan of action & it doesn’t ask whether the plan is necessary.

I’ve read the official explanation and I’m still not convinced because there are many questions in which we eliminate E. More than that the prompt is talking about what’s ‘not said’.

I’ll live with forgetting about this specific Qn completely

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
custodio
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2018
Last visit: 03 Feb 2023
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 46
Posts: 34
Kudos: 10
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 21 Jul 2022, 20:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tricky question because we have "salinity" in the passage and answer choices that does not play an important role in the argument at all.
It means, if you read the passage like this, the argument is still valid: (author just wants to preserve the delta, i.e. preventing water level drop. He kind of does not care about salinity at all)

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

I guess GMAC just put that information about salt to confuse us.
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 May 2026
Posts: 731
Own Kudos:
577
Given Kudos: 337
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 731
Kudos: 577
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 15 May 2023, 01:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB MagooshExpert MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja how can we rule out the linkage between drop in water level and drinkability of the water as a conclusion ? How can we be sure that we are not concerned with eventually water not being made drinkable? I would have actually gone with A for that reason

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,645
Own Kudos:
81,196
Given Kudos: 491
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,645
Kudos: 81,196
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 15 May 2023, 03:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
KarishmaB MagooshExpert MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja how can we rule out the linkage between drop in water level and drinkability of the water as a conclusion ? How can we be sure that we are not concerned with eventually water not being made drinkable? I would have actually gone with A for that reason

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

The question gives you the aim of the plan and the plan:

To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries.

Other things are a distraction.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,471
Own Kudos:
5,699
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,471
Kudos: 5,699
 [2]
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 15 May 2023, 04:28
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
how can we rule out the linkage between drop in water level and drinkability of the water as a conclusion ? How can we be sure that we are not concerned with eventually water not being made drinkable? I would have actually gone with A for that reason
Show more
To answer the question, we need to find "a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action."

The plan of action is

To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries.

So, the plan is a plan "to keep the delta's water level from dropping any further."

That fact stated by (A), that "Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier," does not indicate a weakness in the plan "to keep the delta's water level from dropping."
User avatar
nisen20
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2020
Last visit: 18 Jul 2026
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
435
Given Kudos: 504
Posts: 88
Kudos: 435
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 07 Dec 2023, 08:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This question is absurd.

"a weakness of the plan" means "the weakness is a part of the plan". To wit: the existence of the weakness relies on the existence of the plan.
If the plan was unnecessary and suddenly disappeared into thin air, there's no "a weakness of the plan" left.

That we don't need the plan—what option (E) claims, cannot be a weakness of the plan, and should be a weakness of the people who made the plan.
User avatar
SnorLax_7
User avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2022
Last visit: 22 Sep 2025
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
29
Given Kudos: 1,925
Posts: 84
Kudos: 29
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 24 Mar 2024, 09:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi MartyMurray KarishmaB DmitryFarber @AjiteshArun
Quote:
Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?
Show more
In this CR question, If I change the question stem to 'if true, would show that Plan wont achieve its goal ?' then will Option E still a weakener ? asking because we know the plan is useless but whether it will achieve its goal or not ? we don't know, right ?

Am I correct ? or uselessness of plan means it will not achieve the goal.

Kindly can you help ?

Thanks !­
User avatar
Aim4gmat2024
User avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2024
Last visit: 07 Apr 2025
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: IIMC '25 NUS '26 Rotterdam'25
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.1
WE:Information Technology (Telecommunications)
Schools: IIMC '25 NUS '26 Rotterdam'25
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V32
Posts: 26
Kudos: 1
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 24 Mar 2024, 23:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The conclusion assumes that the drop in water level is due the water diverted to different areas upstream, and argues that the diversion of water should be ended

Option E: states that water level decrease was due to the drought, and that the drought has ended. Thus indirectly stating that the diversion of water isnt the reason for low levels of water in delta, and states that conclusion which advocated for stopping of water need not be carried out, thus weakening it
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,645
Own Kudos:
81,196
 [1]
Given Kudos: 491
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,645
Kudos: 81,196
 [1]
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 26 Mar 2024, 04:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Quote:
Hi MartyMurray KarishmaB DmitryFarber @AjiteshArun Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?In this CR question, If I change the question stem to 'if true, would show that Plan wont achieve its goal ?' then will Option E still a weakener ? asking because we know the plan is useless but whether it will achieve its goal or not ? we don't know, right ?

Am I correct ? or uselessness of plan means it will not achieve the goal.

Kindly can you help ?

Thanks !­
Show more
A "plan" is meant to address a problem - it has an aim. If a plan is "useless," it means it will not achieve its aim. They are inter-changeable in GMAT CR questions. 
When we say, "the plan will acheive its goal," we mean that if we make the changes as per plan, will the aim be achieved assuming all else stays the same. 
Hence if the problem being addressed is "water level in the Searle River Delta is dropping" and the plan is "end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries," the plan will be a failure if the current diversions from the tributaries is not the reason for the drop. 
 


­
User avatar
rmahe11
User avatar
Joined: 13 Oct 2023
Last visit: 15 Aug 2025
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
30
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 106
Kudos: 30
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 26 Mar 2024, 06:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATIntensive

The Story
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. - We’re presented with a conditional in the first statement. It is not given yet whether the water level in the delta will continue to drop. However, if it continues to drop, the water will become saltier and less suitable for drinking through the rising sea level.

Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. - “Upstream tributaries” indicates these are water bodies that feed into the delta. However, 40% of the water from these tributaries does not reach the delta and is diverted to neighboring areas.

To keep the delta’s water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. - To prevent the water level in the delta from dropping further, the author suggests that they should end all ‘current diversions’ from the upstream tributaries (This would include the 40% water that is diverted to neighboring areas).

Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta. - While the neighboring areas will likely experience higher costs for water, and diminished water supplies, these costs are necessary to preserve the delta. (So if the delta water becomes saltier and less suitable from drinking,the delta is not preserved.)

Gist: If the water levels in the delta continue to drop, the water will become saltier and less drinkable. In order to prevent the level from dropping further (goal), we should end all diversions from the upstream tributaries (plan) which include diversions to neighboring areas. While there will likely be inconveniences caused, these steps are necessary to preserve the delta.


The Gap
“To keep the delta’s water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries.” The author assumes that if all current diversions are not ended, the delta’s water level will continue dropping.


The Goal
Anything that attacks the assumption we have discussed above will get the job done. There could be other assumptions and other ways to weaken the suggestion as well.


The Evaluation

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
Incorrect. The letter states that if the water level continues to drop the water will become saltier AND less suitable for drinking. While drinkability is one concern, there very well might be other issues related to saltier water in the delta. So, even if certain equipment helps the water to become drinkable, the delta might still not be preserved. For example, what if the delta water is used for irrigation and if the water gets saltier? the delta water would no longer be usable for irrigation. And the delta might still not be considered preserved.

B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
Incorrect. Do we care whether water level is only one factor i.e. that there are other factors that affect salinity in the delta? Does that indicate that we should not end diversions from the upstream tributaries? As long as the water level is a significant reason for salinity in the delta, the plan still makes sense. This option does not indicate any weakness in the suggested plan.

Let’s consider an example. Say a doctor suggests to a patient that she should stop consuming fatty foods to control her rising cholesterol level. Does it make sense for the patient to refute the suggestion by saying that since consuming fatty foods is only one factor that affects cholesterol levels, she need not stop consuming such foods?

C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
Incorrect. How water levels of the upstream tributaries are controlled is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
Incorrect. If, as the option suggests, the diversion of water into the neighboring areas led to an increase in the population in the areas, ending diversions might lead to a decrease in the population. Ending diversions would, at least, inconvenience the people and have a cost implication for them. However, there is no relationship between population fluctuations and the water level of the delta.

E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.
Correct. The drop in the water level was mainly due to a drought. The drought has now ended. So, perhaps the water levels in the delta will start to rise again, or at least the levels will likely not continue to drop. We now question the need to implement the suggested plan to achieve the desired goal of increasing the delta water level in the first place.


If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.
Show more
­In D, since neighbouring areas popluation grows wont the consumption increase ?
User avatar
himanshi1172
User avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2022
Last visit: 29 Jun 2025
Posts: 9
Given Kudos: 261
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q84 V85 DI79
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q84 V85 DI79
Posts: 9
Kudos: 0
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 01 May 2025, 03:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Would it also be relevant to note that - ending diversions is the way to stop the water-level from dropping any further - implies that the the diversion should stop it from it dropping by 100% ?
if there was another option suggesting that other factors can cause the drop even after ending the diversions - that would be a weakener/drawback too right? I think Option E also indicates to some extent that other factors caused a major drop.. which is indirectly in line with this reasoning?
KarishmaB
thecoronafever
I found this question to be very much flawed.
At first, the question says "serious potential weakness" of the suggested plan. The stimulus is not about what caused the drop in levels. So, with option (E), even if draught caused the drop, implementing the plan might just level up the river faster. But it's implementation won't mean that the plan will not achieve the goal. I think use of "serious potential weakness" in question means that there should be drawback of the plan that should be listed in the choices. And that's why I didn't like this question at all.

VeritasKarishma can you please help here?

thecoronafever - I understand your concern and for what its worth, I believe it is not unfounded. But here are some points which make the answer correct.

- You have 4 clearly wrong options.
- The reason for the drop is relevant. Say the delta gets just 10% of its water from the tributaries and rest from rain. The option tells us that most of the drop is because of draught. Then possibly, only rain can make up for the drop. Even if the diversions of tributaries are ended, it may bring in only 2-3% extra water which may not stop the water level from dropping. Hence, it is potential weakness of the plan. If the draught is now ending, the main source of water would kick into action and the problem may just go away.
Show more
User avatar
kabirgandhi
User avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2024
Last visit: 20 Aug 2026
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 85
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q85 V84 DI77
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q88 V88 DI81
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q88 V88 DI81
Posts: 72
Kudos: 23
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 12 Jul 2025, 03:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I believe that this question's biggest challenge is the difficulty in conclusion identification - can anyone help? GMATNinja, MartyMurray, GMATGuruNY
User avatar
muskang2000
User avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
12
Given Kudos: 7
Location: India
Schools: ISB HEC Sept '27 IIM Anderson '27
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q85 V79 DI76
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests
Schools: ISB HEC Sept '27 IIM Anderson '27
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q85 V79 DI76
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
Posts: 38
Kudos: 12
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 18 Aug 2026, 20:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

Problem: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking.
Background: Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas.
Plan of Action: To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta

Pre-thinking: So, ending all current diversions from upstream tributaries will help in solving the problem? Are the increasing costs for neighbours really necessary to preserve delta?

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier: So, increase in costs are necessary in one way or other. This strengthens. OUT
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta: okay there could be more factors but this option does not make us doubt that the current plan won't work. It will solve the problem to some extent not fully. So, this is not a strong weakener. OUT
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs: Neither comments on increase in costs nor on the problem. OUT
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries: So, increase in costs are necessary in one way or other. This strengthens. OUT
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended. CORRECT. This tells us that the whole issue that we were trying to solve for was temporary. So, ending all current diversions from upstream tributaries is not required. AND thus, increasing costs for neighbours are not really necessary to preserve delta

Ans: E
User avatar
avoluptatum
User avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Schools: Booth (Chicago) Berkeley Haas NYU Stern
Schools: Booth (Chicago) Berkeley Haas NYU Stern
Posts: 12
Kudos: 1
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 19 Aug 2026, 21:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Author's logic: why we should address dropping water level issue ("water saltier and less suitable for drinking") -> where the water is going ("diverted into neighboring areas") -> how we can address the issue ("end all current diversions") -> implications of proposed solution and reiterance of importance ("higher costs and diminished water supplies...but necessary").

Looking for: weakness in plan

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
  • Drinkability of water is not a point of contention in the plan, unrelated

B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
  • The plan does not address salinity, unrelated

C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
  • The plan does not discuss dams and reservoirs, and it is unclear how dams and reservoirs would affect the plan

D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
  • Proposes a correlation between the increase in water and population growth, but unrelated to the plan

E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.
  • Proposes a blindspot in the plan because the plan assumes the main culprit of the dropping water levels is the diversion of water, while the answer choice says that the drought is the main issue
User avatar
avoluptatum
User avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2025
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Schools: Booth (Chicago) Berkeley Haas NYU Stern
Schools: Booth (Chicago) Berkeley Haas NYU Stern
Posts: 12
Kudos: 1
Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con 19 Aug 2026, 21:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Your point seems relevant. It appears that "any further" is a key phrase in the passage, and the hypothetical answer choice you proposed would be similar to answer E. From my understanding, the GMAT likes to incorporate modifiers (extreme language) such as "always," "never," "some" that are important for answering the question. Even one seemingly small phrase like "any further" should be taken into consideration when looking for weaknesses in the plan.
himanshi1172
Would it also be relevant to note that - ending diversions is the way to stop the water-level from dropping any further - implies that the the diversion should stop it from it dropping by 100% ?
if there was another option suggesting that other factors can cause the drop even after ending the diversions - that would be a weakener/drawback too right? I think Option E also indicates to some extent that other factors caused a major drop.. which is indirectly in line with this reasoning?

Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts