Premises:
- To avoid manatee-boat collisions, boat traffic in manatee-populated waters is being required to maintain very low speeds.
- Manatees are unable to hear low-pitched sounds.
- A boat’s sound lowers in pitch as the boat slows.

Conclusion:
This approach (the approach is 'reducing boat speeds') may make things worse.

If we have to cast doubt on the conclusion, we have to show that reducing boat speeds may not make things worse.
Option (A): It doesn't matter how the areas were decided. This option doesn't say that reducing boat speed will not increase collisions.
Option (B): Out of scope of our question. We need to focus on boat-manatee collisions.
Option (C): Boat traffic is increasing. But it doesn't say how reducing speed may not increase number of collisions.
Option (D): It does have something to do with speed of sound. But it says that sound of a boat travels much further under water than through air. If sounds are low pitched manatees may not be able to hear them, irrespective of how far the sounds travel and how far the manatees are from the boat. Lowering of speed of boats could make the situation worse and hence, it doesn't weaken my conclusion.
Option (E): Manatees are unable to discern sounds of boat moving at different speeds over background noise. This means, it doesn't matter at what speed the boat is moving. The manatee will not be able to discern its sound (whether high pitched or low pitched). Hence, reducing the speeds of the boats will not have a negative impact on the number of collisions. It might even have some positive effect since the slow moving boat may be able to see the manatee and change its course in time. Hence, this option weakened our conclusion.
Answer (E).

Note: To weaken the conclusion, I only need to prove that the approach may not make things worse. I don't have to show that it necessarily improves matters.
_________________

Karishma
Private Tutor for GMAT
Contact: bansal.karishma@gmail.com

IMO B
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Yes B.

Apply negation on B. And arg will reverse.

Now I am hesitant on B. But the only contenders are B / E.

E is only one which DELINKS the speed of boat as the key force of the argument.

I believe the answer should be E. B though mentions that fast boats can kill the manatees, but no where it mentions if the slow boats are going to help and reduce the collisions.

B answer choice is like a Shell game.

OA please. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh

Shell game is like the answer choice most similar to correct one, though not the correct one.

The argument's conclusion is - slower boats might worsen the problem.

Answer choice E says Manatees are not able to hear noises at any levels. Hence the problem won't worsen but will stay same.

Answer choice B is about faster boats and nothing to say about slower boats.

Hence I believe to be E rather than B. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh

E.
Seemed easy to me.

because boats drive fast they kill manatee.
Why? there are two reasons: either manatees are sluggish or deaf.
conclusion: author says that deafness kills M. we must introduce evidence that would make author to reconsider his her conclusion by saying "ohh... I am stupid I did not account for this"

E says that M can't discern sounds, so they die not due to deafness, but becuase they are sluggish.
_________________

Audaces fortuna juvat!

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

i also thought B
but E it shud be
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

B if something, strengthenes the argument saying that slow boats is a good plan.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manatees, aquatic mammals inhabiting Florida’s rivers and coastal waters, swim close to the surface and are frequently killed in collisions with boats. To address the problem, boat traffic in manatee-populated waters is being required to maintain very low speeds. Unfortunately, manatees are unable to hear low-pitched sounds and a boat’s sound lowers in pitch as the boat slows. Therefore, this approach may in fact make things worse rather than better.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the conclusion?

A. The areas where boats would have to maintain low speeds were decided partly on
the basis of manatee-population estimates and partly from numbers of reported
collisions between manatees and boats.
B. Because the water hyacinth that manatees feed on grows best in water that is
nearly still, water hyacinth beds can be disturbed or damaged by fast-moving boat
traffic.
C. Over the last several decades, boat traffic in Florida’s coastal waters has been
increasing almost continuously and now represents the greatest threat to the
endangered manatee population.
D. The sound of a boat engine generally travels much further under water than it
does through the air.
E. When experimenters exposed manatees to the recorded sounds of boats moving at
various speeds, the creatures were unable to discern the sounds over normal
background noise.

I marked the OA by PoE, but I was not much clear on the argument. Can someone explain on the argument and answer choice?

Can someone please explain this. I still dont understand why E is correct.

Premise: Manatees swim near the surface and get killed. To solve this problem, even low speed boats are not of much use because the Manatees cannot hear the low pitch sound of the boats.
Conclusion: The above approach may actually result in more Manatees getting killed.

To weaken the conclusion, we have to find an option where more Manatees are NOT getting killed, right?

Option E states that Manatees cannot distinguish low pitch sounds, so this will actually result in more Manatees getting killed. This seems to strengthen the conclusion. Can the experts help me on this?