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.
Jul 1012:00 PM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
50% off all study plans with code PROGRESS - Expires Monday 7/13
Jul 0608:00 AM PDT
-05:00 PM PDT
Compete to win some amazing Prizes such as Admissions Consulting Packages, Courses, and more. This is your Best Opportunity to improve your GMAT Score! Register to Participate
Jul 0810:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Receive 2 FREE hours of tutoring when you enroll in a 655+ course
Jul 1010:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
Jul 1209:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Increase your score with a powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Sundays July 12, 2026-October 1, 2026, 9:30am-12:30pm EST.- Jul 12
11:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Join us in a GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
06 Oct 2021, 08:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja Please kindly help to explain question5
5. The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" (see hightlited text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) A disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activity could increase the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did.
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
I chose the wrong option A, and the reason was that we can infer related information from " there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption."➢ For me, such info means that the negaitve impact of human behaviors is comparable to that of natural causes (volcanic eruption), and both kinds of impact can lead to high straying rate, causing adaptations that are present become diluted, in other words, "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations".
Could you please kindly help to explain why option A is wrong and option C is correct?
Which part I did wrong?
Thank you so so much for your patience and kindness.
5. The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" (see hightlited text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) A disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activity could increase the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did.
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
I chose the wrong option A, and the reason was that we can infer related information from " there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption."➢ For me, such info means that the negaitve impact of human behaviors is comparable to that of natural causes (volcanic eruption), and both kinds of impact can lead to high straying rate, causing adaptations that are present become diluted, in other words, "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations".
Could you please kindly help to explain why option A is wrong and option C is correct?
Which part I did wrong?
Thank you so so much for your patience and kindness.
29 Oct 2021, 11:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 5:
Well0909
For an in-depth look at why (C) is correct, check out this post. Here are some thoughts on why (A) is wrong.
Keep in mind that an assumption is something ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for a conclusion to hold. Let's apply that test to (A).
The conclusion is that "such a dramatic increase in straying from damaged areas to more pristine streams results in substantial gene flow, which can in turn lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations." By "such a dramatic increase," they must mean the straying increase of 40% caused by the volcanic eruption. Such a high level of straying, the author concludes, will cause gene flow from damaged streams to more pristine streams, which will in turn lower the fitness of the salmon in the more pristine streams.
Note that the conclusion doesn't ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE that the disturbances caused by human activity will increase the straying rate as much as the eruption, as (A) states. All the conclusion requires is that such a high level of straying will cause the outcomes described. So (A) isn't an assumption on which the argument is based.
Regarding (C) -- how exactly does the author make the leap from "gene flow" to reducing "overall fitness?" Earlier in the passage, the author states that gene flow will cause "local adaptations that are present to become diluted." But why should diluting local adaptations reduce the fitness of salmon? To draw that conclusion, we'd have to ASSUME that local adaptations provide some benefit -- otherwise, diluting them wouldn't reduce fitness.
Since that's exactly what (C) says, it's correct.
I hope that helps!
GraceSCKao
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,244
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
05 Dec 2021, 00:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi GMATNinja,
I have read all the previous posts but am still a bit unsure about the second question.
I got the option (D) by mapping and eliminating all other options, but the wording in the option (D) seems problematic to me. I know that a change of even one single word can greatly change the reasoning in GMAT, so I would like to know whether my doubt makes sense.
The passage clearly says that "Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be repopulated should the fish there disappear," so I know that the failure of some salmon to return to their home streams provides a way by which another streams can be repopulated, if the fish there disappear.
But, the condition in the option (D) is "should the stream recover," which the passage does not mention clearly.
I know that previously a few members or experts, while analyzing this condition, made inferences that the stream should have be restored first so that the new fish that stray and arrive in the stream can survive there.
But, after reading many RC passages regarding biology, I find it hard to believe that such inference could be made with complete certainty. The disappearance of the first group of fish could be attributed to many reasons other than environmental damage, such as an increase in its predators. In this case, the condition in the option (D) "should the stream recover" seems out of place.
Even if we assume that the first group of fish disappeared due to environmental damage, there is still a chance that the second group of fish can survive in the damaged waters, even though the stream has not recovered, as different species of animals have different tolerance for environmental pollution (I presume that this is is a common sense.) In this case, the condition in the option (D) "should the stream recover" seems also out of place.
The second question is an inference question, so we need to find an answer whose information is implied by the passage. I just do not think the condition "should the stream recover" works here.
Hope you can clarify my doubt if you are available. Thank you very much.
VRC000460-02
2. It can be inferred from the passage that the occasional failure of some salmon to return to their natal streams in order to spawn provides a mechanism by which
(A) pristine streams that are near polluted streams become polluted themselves
(B) the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
(C) the number of salmon in pristine habitats decreases relative to the number in polluted streams
(D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
(E) the extinction of the salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams is accelerated
I have read all the previous posts but am still a bit unsure about the second question.
I got the option (D) by mapping and eliminating all other options, but the wording in the option (D) seems problematic to me. I know that a change of even one single word can greatly change the reasoning in GMAT, so I would like to know whether my doubt makes sense.
The passage clearly says that "Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be repopulated should the fish there disappear," so I know that the failure of some salmon to return to their home streams provides a way by which another streams can be repopulated, if the fish there disappear.
But, the condition in the option (D) is "should the stream recover," which the passage does not mention clearly.
I know that previously a few members or experts, while analyzing this condition, made inferences that the stream should have be restored first so that the new fish that stray and arrive in the stream can survive there.
But, after reading many RC passages regarding biology, I find it hard to believe that such inference could be made with complete certainty. The disappearance of the first group of fish could be attributed to many reasons other than environmental damage, such as an increase in its predators. In this case, the condition in the option (D) "should the stream recover" seems out of place.
Even if we assume that the first group of fish disappeared due to environmental damage, there is still a chance that the second group of fish can survive in the damaged waters, even though the stream has not recovered, as different species of animals have different tolerance for environmental pollution (I presume that this is is a common sense.) In this case, the condition in the option (D) "should the stream recover" seems also out of place.
The second question is an inference question, so we need to find an answer whose information is implied by the passage. I just do not think the condition "should the stream recover" works here.
Hope you can clarify my doubt if you are available. Thank you very much.
VRC000460-02
2. It can be inferred from the passage that the occasional failure of some salmon to return to their natal streams in order to spawn provides a mechanism by which
(A) pristine streams that are near polluted streams become polluted themselves
(B) the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
(C) the number of salmon in pristine habitats decreases relative to the number in polluted streams
(D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
(E) the extinction of the salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams is accelerated
