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

 It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 02:58

### 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

# Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 101
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: ISB '18 (S)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 700 Q44 V41
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 12:09
1
16
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (01:52) correct 62% (02:13) wrong based on 413 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

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

(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobsters.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Source : PowerScore
Source : LSAT PrepTest35 Q8
Manager
Status: Build your own dreams,Otherwise some one else will hire you to build there's.
Joined: 30 Apr 2015
Posts: 85
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: BYU-Marriott'18
GMAT 1: 590 Q45 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.68
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 06:26
_________________
-Dori Roberts
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 283
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 06:49
3
mahakmalik wrote:

Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

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

A> Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
B> Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
C> Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
D> Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobsters.
E> Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Conclusion- the proposal is pointless .
The argument cites a reason why the proposal is pointless -because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Now in order to weaken the argument we need to cast doubt on the conclusion with some new information.
Option E provides us with that extra information that we need to cast doubt on the conclusion.
Option E provides a reasoning why the proposal may not be pointless.
Perhaps the author must consider other ideas such as E before stating that the proposal is pointless.

B is of the topic because the point in question is not about the life length of the lobsters but about why the proposal may not be pointless.

E states that perhaps the proposal is not all pointless.

Hope the above helps.

Kudos if you find the above useful.
_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
Manager
Status: Build your own dreams,Otherwise some one else will hire you to build there's.
Joined: 30 Apr 2015
Posts: 85
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: BYU-Marriott'18
GMAT 1: 590 Q45 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.68
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 07:20
1
Ohk,
I thought,if lobsters will not get the disease because they do not live long enough.Then how will humans get the disease by eating the lobster.?

I am still confused.
_________________
-Dori Roberts
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 101
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: ISB '18 (S)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 700 Q44 V41
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2016, 14:34
3
1
Hello mahakmalik,

Lets see the argument that we have to weaken:

Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

we have following options here:

A> Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
Out of scope, as we are talking about the contaminants in sewage only

B> Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
This is a tricky one. Prima facie a contender..but major flaw is:
In question we are talking about Harbor Industrial or otherwise we dont know..it could be either.. In these questions you just cant assume things.

C> Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
Breeding has nothing to do with longevity of life. so you'd want to skip this

D> Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobsters.
Out of scope

E> Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.
YES,, this is the point. See this doesn't tell us whether lobsters live longer.. but it does tell thatpeople are getting sick because of eating lobsters from harbor where sewage is dumped..so it does imply sewage water affects the lobsters in bad way (as a resutlt affecting humans also) and thus rerouting DOES have a point and is not just a pointless decision.

CR is cruel. HOPE THIS HELPS
Manager
Status: Build your own dreams,Otherwise some one else will hire you to build there's.
Joined: 30 Apr 2015
Posts: 85
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: BYU-Marriott'18
GMAT 1: 590 Q45 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.68
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2016, 18:11
Thanks.It surly does help
CR is very very cruel.
_________________
-Dori Roberts
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1348
Location: Malaysia
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2017, 01:01
2
Youraisemeup wrote:
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

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

(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobsters.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Source : PowerScore
Source : LSAT PrepTest35 Q8

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Weaken the Argument

Weakens” signals the need to identify evidence and conclusion and to drive a wedge between them. “The proposal is pointless” should practically scream “I am the conclusion,” since such a value judgment cannot stand without supporting evidence. The proposal is to reduce local sewage so as to protect lobsters against gill diseases, and the alleged “pointlessness” stems from the brief lobster lifespan, too brief for the creatures “to be harmed by those diseases.” Of course, the proposal gains merit should one prove that a positive benefit accrues from preventing lobster gill disease, and (E) does just that. If (E) is true, the removed sewage should result in healthier lobsters who, in turn, will lead to healthier (or at least less sickly) lobster eaters.

Other sources of harm to lobsters (A) can be addressed in another proposal, but have nothing to do with the rationality of this one. That the open ocean leads to longer-lived crustacea (B) is irrelevant to the health effects of “sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught.” By arguing that breeding success is irrelevant to pollution, (C) if anything lends credence to the claim that the sewage removal is pointless. And the detection of gill diseases (D) would be irrelevant to the claim about harmfulness even if one’s everyday knowledge didn’t tell us that people don’t tend to eat the shells but rather the lobster meat inside them.

Quote:
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: The proposal to stop putting sewage into the harbor is pointless.

REASONING: Lobsters (eaten by humans) get gill disease when sewage is dumped in their water. But most lobsters don’t live long enough to be harmed by the disease.

ANALYSIS: This is one of the worst arguments I’ve seen on the LSAT, but it’s also very clever. So clever that many people don’t even see what’s wrong with it. The lobsters aren’t harmed, so what’s the issue, they ask?

Would you like to eat lobster contaminated by sewage and that have gill disease?

Just because the lobsters aren’t harmed doesn’t meant that there is no point to preventing gill disease. We eat them!
Further, the conclusion is really, really broad: the proposal is pointless. But the only evidence is about lobsters. There might be some benefit to cleaning the harbor, apart from healthier lobster. Maybe some fish will get less sick, maybe we can swim in the harbor, maybe the town will smell better, etc. There could be many other benefits that show the proposal is NOTpointless.”
___________
A. The proposal was only talking about redirecting sewage. Other contaminants are irrelevant since no one was proposing to clean them up.
B. That’s nice. But we don’t know why lobsters live longer in oceans and we have no evidence that it is due to lack of sewage.
C. This would strengthen the argument. Sewage doesn’t seem to harm lobster breeding.
D. This doesn’t really affect anything since the lobsters don’t get sick from the gill disease.
E. CORRECT. This gives us a good reason to prevent gill disease: we get sick if we eat polluted lobster. So the proposal has a point: it could make us healthier.

_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 216
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2018, 15:06
Dear experts, why C is not also a weakener? It is because C shows that the proposal is beneficial. If lobsters breed in sewage water, then the young lobsters will have the Gill disease. I guess young lobsters have nothing to do with the premise of longevity and Gill disease, isn't it?

E weakens both the conclusion and the main premise. Nevertheless, E is not convincing b/c E assumes that humans are willing to eat dead lobsters which contain the gill disease.
The pattern in E appears in another question, but that question asks about the flavor.
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1716
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2018, 23:38
Answer choice (C): The issue is not breeding frequency but longevity. So, while we are pleased to hear that lobsters in sewage-contaminated waters breed frequently, this fact does not impact an argument based on the age and disease contraction.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2011
Posts: 59
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.17
WE: Other (Accounting)
Re: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2018, 20:09
I don't think E is good. So I don't think any answer will be good.

The argument actually implies that the author knows about the consequence of human eating the illed lobster. The last sentence correctly states that this diseases highly likely won't harm the lobster. Simply saying it's harmful for human to eat lobster with that disease is actually "pointless".
Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Posts: 72
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Oct 2019, 07:44
I think the question does not make any sense either, the GMAT would not ask such question because it´s highly attractive to argue against this reasoning.

"Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases."

The main argument is that the proposal is pointless; The premise for that is that hardly any loberst live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

So in the best case we would want to find something about longevity, in a simple world there would be a answer like "Recent studies showed that lobsters live longer than previously supposed ..." Ahh so now they are vulnerable against the disease.

The fact that humans get sick doesn't really undermine the main conclusion - Imagine if there where actually two people talking while the other one is saying "lobsters won't get sick because they don't get old enough to catch the disease" the other one is saying "humans get sick if they eat those lobsters"

Then the counterpart is most likely going to say "well, that is true and I already knew that but MY POINT is that it doesn't matter anyway because the contamination won't affect the disease of the lobsters because they don't live that long anyway'

It's kind of flawed - while you could make a case for E) it is really unclear and not watrproof/airtight whatever for me.
You can probably say it's the best out of the worst weakeners.
_________________
Don't wait for the opportunity to knock.
Go kick in the door.

Originally posted by chrtpmdr on 01 Oct 2019, 05:13.
Last edited by chrtpmdr on 01 Oct 2019, 07:44, edited 1 time in total.
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 780
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2019, 06:13
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Context: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. This would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught

Premise: Hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases

Conclusion: The proposal is pointless

Interesting. So we are polluting an area of water where we catch certain amounts of seafood. We are told that the proposal, though it would solve the issue, is pointless, because the seafood we are catching doesn't live long enough to be harmed. We are told to weaken this. Hmm. Well, what about those humans they referred to in the context? Are we affected by this even if the lobsters aren't? What about the ocean itself? Is it better to have a cleaner ocean because maybe the waste dissipates more in the open ocean? We could go in many different directions here, so let's hope our answers point us in the right direction.

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

(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters. -- OK, but we are only told about the sewage. We don't know if this plan removes other contaminants, so this does not help us one bit.

(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors. -- OK, but we are told that they don't live long enough to be affected to begin with. For this to be correct, we have to assume that, for example, Lobsters live a year in the harbor but 10 years in the open ocean. On top of this, we need to assume how long it takes for the disease to kick in. We are told that lobsters are not affected by the disease, so how much longer do we need to assume? From our example, it is between 1-10 years. On the flip side, you can make an argument the other way and assume that lobsters do not live long enough, and that it is less time than what was required to trigger the disease. In the end, you have to make an assumption to make this work, which we cannot do to make an answer choice work. Out.

(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated water as in unpolluted water. -- Cool, so lobsters breed the same. How does this affect anything in our argument? It just says the amount of lobsters isn't being affected. I think if you chose you were thinking that more lobsters = more polluted seafood. But we are already told that they are not affected, so we are now saying that they are indeed affected and that humans will eat just as many polluted as unpolluted and that this is bad for us (more assumptions being made). Out.

(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobsters. -- Another trap-ish answer choice. So what if we cannot see the disease by examining the surface alone? Can we identify it through other examination techniques? This is trying to say that we cannot identify the disease, but that is not what it is saying. We are just told that one way to identify it doesn't work.

(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases. -- Bingo. So if you got here through process of elimination, then you did your job. It is just as important to know the correct answer as it is to know the wrong ones. But on to why this is correct. We are told that humans eat lobster, but we are not told what happens if they eat a lobster with gill disease. We are told that lobsters are not harmed, but we are now told that humans are harmed. If this is the case, then we want to prevent this disease because we are given an alternative reason to prevent it. Do not confuse the term "harmed" with "diagnosed" or "containing". The lobsters can have the disease and not be harmed. This is why this is the correct answer.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here

My RC Guide: Here

Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans--Source: Powerscore CR   [#permalink] 01 Oct 2019, 06:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by