Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 08:59 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 08:59
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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   3   
505-555 Level|   Long Passage|   Science|         
User avatar
Rebekah
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2018
Last visit: 08 Jan 2019
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 41
Posts: 18
Kudos: 8
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 30 Oct 2018, 06:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Which of the following does the author mention as support for the view that environmental disturbances caused by human activity could increase straying rates?
(A) The existence of salmon populations in rivers where the elimination of salmon habitat by human activity had previously made the fish extinct
(B) The results of studies measuring the impact on straying rates of habitat loss caused by human activity
(C) The potential for disturbances in one environment to cause the introduction of novel genes into salmon populations in neighboring areas
(D) The weaknesses in the view that the extinction of entire salmon populations is the only mechanism by which human destruction of salmon habitat reduces genetic diversity in salmon
(E) The absence of any reason for believing that disturbances brought about by human activitity would differ in their effects from comparable disturbances brought about by natural causes
ABC to me are really confusing! They are not even complete sentences.
Plus I do not have a clue about how to choose? Can someone please help!
User avatar
dave13
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Last visit: 12 Aug 2025
Posts: 1,108
Own Kudos:
1,113
Given Kudos: 3,851
Posts: 1,108
Kudos: 1,113
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 01 Nov 2018, 09:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rebekah
Which of the following does the author mention as support for the view that environmental disturbances caused by human activity could increase straying rates?
(A) The existence of salmon populations in rivers where the elimination of salmon habitat by human activity had previously made the fish extinct
(B) The results of studies measuring the impact on straying rates of habitat loss caused by human activity
(C) The potential for disturbances in one environment to cause the introduction of novel genes into salmon populations in neighboring areas
(D) The weaknesses in the view that the extinction of entire salmon populations is the only mechanism by which human destruction of salmon habitat reduces genetic diversity in salmon
(E) The absence of any reason for believing that disturbances brought about by human activitity would differ in their effects from comparable disturbances brought about by natural causes
ABC to me are really confusing! They are not even complete sentences.
Plus I do not have a clue about how to choose? Can someone please help!
Show more

hey Rebekah

lets read the question once more. :)

Which of the following does the author mention as support for the view that environmental disturbances caused by human activity could increase straying rates?

Now ask yourself a question, how author can support his claim? by providing examples right ? so in which paragraph did author put an example ? in the second paragraph, the last sentence: see below

The 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens, for example, sent mud and debris into several tributaries of the Columbia River. For the next couple of years, steelhead trout (a species included among the salmonids) returning from the sea to spawn were forced to find alternative streams. As a consequence, their rates of straying, initially 16 percent, rose to more than 40 percent overall.

note it is not a environmental disturbance caused by human. it is caused by volvanic eruption, which skyrocketed rates of straying to more than 40%


now lets move on to the third pararagraph. see below first sentence

Although no one has quantified changes in the rate of straying as a result of the disturbances caused by humans, 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.


so author mentions here that environmental disturbances caused by volcanic eruptions is equivalent to the environmental disturbance caused by human.


hence correct answer is E

The absence of any reason for believing that disturbances brought about by human activitity would differ in their effects from comparable disturbances brought about by natural causes

:)
User avatar
dave13
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Last visit: 12 Aug 2025
Posts: 1,108
Own Kudos:
1,113
Given Kudos: 3,851
Posts: 1,108
Kudos: 1,113
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 01 Nov 2018, 12:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
manishk30
mikemcgarry
voodoochild
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

Show Spoiler
OA D
Why is B wrong? When high straying happens, dilution is the issue. Hence, when low straying happens, dilution is not an issue at all -- what B) says. Also lines (30), " Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be (40) repopulated should the fish there disappear. " --- implies genes are preserved -- and as the next sentence says "dilution happens" in case of high straying. Can't we infer that in case of low straying, no dilution happens and the genes are preserved?
B is quite wrong because the passage makes very clear --- when a stream is polluted, straying happens, which means dilution happens. The passage describes clearly the straying that resulted from the Mount St. Helen's eruption, and then around line (70) says that the effect of pollution probably would be about the same as what they saw at Mount St. Helen's. When the stream is polluted, the salmon can't use it to spawn, so they stray.

voodoochild
The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generation" (see highlighted text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
a) a disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activtity will increasing the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did.
b) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of total spawning population
c) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptations
d) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect
e) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

Show Spoiler
OA C

Why is E) wrong? Also what support do we have for C) To me, "lowering the overall fitness" implies less likely to pass Darwin's "survival of the fittest" Hence, such adaptations are in fact bad -- 180 to what the OA is :( To me, the conclusion is that straying because of human effects causes bad things to Salmon in pristine streams. What's the support? Straying causing the dilution of the gene pool. I couldn't find that answer choice.
You're correct in your understanding of "fitness" --- we are talking about Darwinian fitness here.

The passage says "high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted." In other words, the salmon in those pristine areas had adaptions particular suited to those areas, which made them quite fit, and along come a bunch of salmon from the polluted stream next door, and they genetically dilute the salmon of that pristine stream, making them less adapted to that unique niche, and hence less fit. That passage is enormous support for (C)

(E) is a typically GMAT RC distractor, and you fell for the bait. It is a statement that's true in general, but not relevant to the argument. Suppose we said that there was no such thing as a "pristine" perfect place for salmon --- suppose even the environments with zero pollution had natural challenges. Well, then, the salmon in those environments, over the centuries, would adapt to those particular conditions and be quite fit, and then if others stray into their unique stream and interbreed with them, it will reduce the fitness of that population.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)




Hi Mike,

Could you please explain why the correct option is C and not E for the below question.

4. The author mentions the “aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption” most likely in order to

(A) provide an example of the process that allows the repopulation of rivers whose indigenous salmon population has become extinct
(B) indicate the extent to which the disturbance of salmon habitat by human activity in one stream might affect the genetic structure of salmon populations elsewhere
(C) provide a standard of comparison against which the impact of human activity on the gene flow among salmon populations should be measured
(D) show how salmons’ homing instinct can be impaired as a result of severe environmental degradation of their natal streams
(E) show why straying rates in salmon populations remain generally low except when spawning streams suffer severe environmental disturbance
Show more



hi there,

Since 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



The author provides standard of comparison because you dont need measure qualitatively the effect of human activity when comparing it with volacanic eruption - i.e. both negative effects are qualitatively similar - the statement is based on previous (assumed) experiences, knowledge etc


its like comparing forests fires caused by extremely hot weather, vs forests fires caused by human activity :) the negative effects are similar.

this is how i understand :)
User avatar
Manas1212
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 10 Aug 2019
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
116
Given Kudos: 474
Location: India
Schools: LBS '21 Anderson '21
Schools: LBS '21 Anderson '21
Posts: 68
Kudos: 116
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 23 Apr 2019, 00:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
(B) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of the total spawning population
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
(D) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect on salmonid straying rates.
(E) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

Hi GMATNinja
I got the above question wrong and while articulating my confusion here , I ended up with a better reasoning.(As you have mentioned this in one of your previous posts here)

Here is my reasoning :

The author says INCREASED straying could lower the fitness of the subsequent generations(presumably in the foreign habitat.

So Does that mean the author thinks "Normal Straying increases/benefits the local fitness?"

If so, then C would be the answer.

Please tell me whether my reasoning is correct. Or please add on to it if my should have been better
avatar
Diya52
avatar
Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Last visit: 26 May 2025
Posts: 138
Own Kudos:
128
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 138
Kudos: 128
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 18 Jul 2019, 12:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
(B) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of the total spawning population
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
(D) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect on salmonid straying rates.
(E) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

I am trying to understand the answer to this question and i read an explanation by mikemcgarry in a previous post. So as per my understanding "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" this is caused by straying of salmon from damaged areas to more pristine areas(as mentioned in the last paragraph) and high rates of straying can dilute local adaptations.(as mentioned in second paragraph) Hence we can infer that salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptations. Can someone please confirm if my thinking is correct?
User avatar
warrior1991
User avatar
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Last visit: 03 Feb 2022
Posts: 573
Own Kudos:
437
 [1]
Given Kudos: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 573
Kudos: 437
 [1]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 18 Jul 2019, 19:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja VeritasPrepHailey generis

Can you please explain how in the below question the answer is D???

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
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [3]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 19 Jul 2019, 23:32
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Look at the second paragraph:

"Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. 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. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted."


Some salmon do not return to their natal stream. They stray to nearby streams. Low levels of straying are crucial since they provide a mechanism to repopulate if the fish disappear in the nearby streams.

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
(D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
So if the old population of some nearby stream disappears because of degraded stream, straying can repopulate if the stream recovers.



warrior1991
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja VeritasPrepHailey generis

Can you please explain how in the below question the answer is D???

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
Show more
User avatar
dcummins
User avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 1,064
Own Kudos:
2,325
 [1]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$$$) Melbourne (A$$$$) AGSM (A$$$$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$$$$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (WA) Anderson '23 (WA) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$$$) Melbourne (A$$$$) AGSM (A$$$$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$$$$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (WA) Anderson '23 (WA) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 1,064
Kudos: 2,325
 [1]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 20 Jul 2019, 16:13
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Passage map: Overall the passage describes genetic diversity as another unintended consequence of severed environmental disruptions to Salmon Habitats
P1: to describe the extent of the problem and non-obvious
p2: To argue that large scale disturbances in one locale impact another
p3: To state the potential human cause of straying

Q1
E is correct - quite clear from the 1st - 2nd sentence in P1
A - no conventional explanation therefore incorrect
B - no common misunderstanding therefore incorrect
C - no, not to compare, but to argue that humans can have the same effect
D - no, the argument routinely refers to one environmental effect and humans as one potential cause of this effect

Q2
Inference -refer back and infer.
We are told that some salmon stray to other streams and that this straying is crucial as it provides a source of novel genes and a way by which a location, presumably the disturbed one, can be repopulated if the fish in that disturbed population disappear.

We are then asked to infer what straying provides:
A - it does not state anywhere that pristine streams become polluted by straying populations -incorrect
B - no, we are in fact told the opposite - that dilution occurs.
C - no. We aren't told anything on the population numerical impact
D - Yes. As we are told, VERY INDIRECTLY, "a location can be repopulated".
E - No. We have no basis for this statement.

Q3
Detail - refer back.
We are told of the impact on human activity in the first and last paras. The obvious impact is the numerical effect: decrease in population of polluted environments.
A is incorrect- we are only told that the populace decreases in polluted rivers, nothing of an "increase" in "previously polluted" streams
B is correct - this statement - " the decline in the number of salmon in SOME rivers" (the polluted ones) is the stated effect
C is incorrect because we aren't given a quantitative link between straying and human impact
D is incorrect because we are in fact told the opposite in the last para - "substantial gene flow"
E is incorrect because we are told that humans' increase the vulnerability of salmons by increasing the likelihood of their populace straying

Q5
Which of the following must be true in order for the argument to be true? That's the question.
The argument: A dramatic increase in straying from damaged streams to more pristine streams increases gene flow, lowering the fitness of subsequent generations.

A - This is not required for the argument to be true because humans could SIMPLY cause straying e.g. 1-2% straying rate and the fitness of subsequent generations of the salmon impacted could still be lowered
B - Again, this quantity is not necessarily assumed in arguing that the overall fitness decreases
C must be true because if it weren't true then it wouldn't matter if salmons inter-bred. The argument is that "fitness" (or how good something is) essentially decreases, so if decreasing is bad, what must be true? Keeping genes pure must be true.
D is incorrect - NO - humans are PART of the cause, not ALL of the cause
E is incorrect - no this is the opposite. What's inferred by E is that some of the straying salmon DONT decrease the fitness.


Q6
The potential for humans to impact straying is discussed in P3 by the statement - "although NO ONE has QUANTIFIED changes in the rate of straying as a result of...humans" "there is no reason to believe that the effect would be qualitatively different".

A is not mentioned or supported
B is incorrect because no such studies exist
C is mentioned in the passage, but it is not mentioned in support of the argument that humans increase or cause straying rates. For this reason, C is incorrect.
D is incorrect. Firstly it is the weakness in the view that humans ONLY decrease populations - the whole premise of the passage is that HUMANS DO OTHER THINGS i.e. "increase Straying". Second, "extinction" generally isn't supported. Third, destruction actually INCREASES genetic diversity (mixing).
E is incorrect - The way it is worded can be off-putting. But E essentially states that the "absence" of any "reason (evidence)" does not negate the argument that humans cause straying.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [4]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [4]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 23 Jul 2019, 07:11
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DiyaDutta
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.
(B) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of the total spawning population
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
(D) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect on salmonid straying rates.
(E) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

I am trying to understand the answer to this question and i read an explanation by mikemcgarry in a previous post. So as per my understanding "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" this is caused by straying of salmon from damaged areas to more pristine areas(as mentioned in the last paragraph) and high rates of straying can dilute local adaptations.(as mentioned in second paragraph) Hence we can infer that salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptations. Can someone please confirm if my thinking is correct?
Show more

Manas1212
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.
(B) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of the total spawning population
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
(D) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect on salmonid straying rates.
(E) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

Hi GMATNinja
I got the above question wrong and while articulating my confusion here , I ended up with a better reasoning.(As you have mentioned this in one of your previous posts here)

Here is my reasoning :

The author says INCREASED straying could lower the fitness of the subsequent generations(presumably in the foreign habitat.

So Does that mean the author thinks "Normal Straying increases/benefits the local fitness?"

If so, then C would be the answer.

Please tell me whether my reasoning is correct. Or please add on to it if my should have been better
Show more
Sorry for not replying sooner, Manas1212! I think you are both on the right track here...

The passage specifically tells us 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."

But the very next sentence says, "Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted." According to the author, high rates of straying are bad because they dilute any local adaptations that are present. Okay, that sounds reasonable enough... but what if those local adaptations do not actually benefit the salmonids in any way?

For example, maybe a local population has developed a certain color in response to certain characteristics of the local water. If that change in color doesn't actually help the salmon at all, then it would be an example of a local adaptation that does not actually benefit the salmonids.

But if salmonids in some streams DO benefit from particular local adaptions, then passing those traits to future generations would obviously improve the overall fitness of future generations. Now if a bunch of non-local salmonids come in and diluate those adaptations, a lower percentage of the next generation will have that beneficial adaptation. That would of course lower the overall fitness of future generations.

It might seem a bit ridiculous at first, but unless we assume that salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions, then we can't argue that increased straying would be harmful to the fitness of future generations. That's why (C) is correct!

warrior1991
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja VeritasPrepHailey generis

Can you please explain how in the below question the answer is D???

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
Show more
Have you checked out this post? If that doesn't help, let us know what you are struggling with (be as specific as possible!).
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e Updated on: 17 Sep 2020, 01:26
Originally posted by mSKR on 17 Sep 2020, 00:43.
Last edited by mSKR on 17 Sep 2020, 01:26, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
DiyaDutta


Can you please explain how in the below question the answer is D???

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
Have you checked out this post? If that doesn't help, let us know what you are struggling with (be as specific as possible!).
Show more


It is so disheartened that still I could not choose D over B even after reading the explanations above.

Please check where am I wrong:

Quote:
Look at the second paragraph:

"Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. 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. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted."
Show more

Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process ( straying process) provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism ( straying mechanism ) by which a location ( any location that is in new location after fish strayed in nearby stream) can be repopulated should the fish there ( nearby stream) disappear.

This location can not refer to old stream because fish has already strayed from there and if fish has already strayed from old location to new location , it can only repopulate at new location, means at new stream,but not in old stream

Understanding:
Fish stray from degraded REGION to pristine REGION
Occasional stray: Helpful because if fish disappear from natal ,fish can be repopulated
If more than 40% stray:local adaptations maybe diluted

Analogy similar to:
If migrants are allowed in country ( if they are in low ratio), migrants can be saved and doesn’t affect existing population

But if migrants’ number is increased at large, it would be a burden on local populations, local environment and some unique characteristics of local population could be diluted.


Quote:
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
Show more
Quote:
(B) the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
Show more
particular adaptations ( population of fish that were strayed ) can be survived withuout diltion ( without effecting any danger to local habitat)

Quote:
(D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
Show more
Problem: degraded stream ( stream is like a route from degraded REGION to PRISTINE region)
By far what we know fish can repopulate if stray quantity is less otherwise effect local population
But in option D the condition is “stream recover”
Stream recover or doesn’t recover, fish population can still be repopulated.


GMATNinja VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepHailey generis
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 17 Sep 2020, 01:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Lost in 5th as well,

COnfusion: Salmonids in C are not mentioned LOCALS, what if they are Foreign, then this option can not be valid. But optionA indirectly refers to straying rate more than 40% . please check below my explanation.

Quote:
5. The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" (see highlighted text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
Show more

The condition for lowering the overall fitness of subsequent generations is that the rates of straying should be more than 40 percent overall.


Quote:
(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.
Show more

optionA says: disturbing by human activity could increase straying rate by more than 40%.If it is less than 40% then overall fitness may not decrease, so it is necessary to have straying rate over 40% and thus should match the assumption( Option A indirectly refers the staying rate is more than 40%)

Quote:
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
Show more
Option C doesn’t mention these Salmonids are native or foreign. If these salmons are not local then their benefit to local adaptations doesn’t LOWER the OVERALL fitness of subsequent generations.


Kindly suggest GMATNinja VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepHailey generis
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 17 Sep 2020, 01:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For question 2: and 5th
COnfusion:
5th: what if salmonids are not LOcals, how can they benefit. C
A : indirectly says : 40% + condition
https://gmatclub.com/forum/over-the-las ... l#p2622667

for 2nd: after fish disappear, it will repopulate in new stream , it doesn't matter old stream stays polluted or gets cleaned
https://gmatclub.com/forum/over-the-las ... l#p2622625

please help on this
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 21 Sep 2020, 00:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR
GMATNinja
DiyaDutta


Can you please explain how in the below question the answer is D???

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
Have you checked out this post? If that doesn't help, let us know what you are struggling with (be as specific as possible!).


It is so disheartened that still I could not choose D over B even after reading the explanations above.

Please check where am I wrong:

Quote:
Look at the second paragraph:

"Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. 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. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted."

Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process ( straying process) provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism ( straying mechanism ) by which a location ( any location that is in new location after fish strayed in nearby stream) can be repopulated should the fish there ( nearby stream) disappear.

This location can not refer to old stream because fish has already strayed from there and if fish has already strayed from old location to new location , it can only repopulate at new location, means at new stream,but not in old stream

Understanding:
Fish stray from degraded REGION to pristine REGION
Occasional stray: Helpful because if fish disappear from natal ,fish can be repopulated
If more than 40% stray:local adaptations maybe diluted

Analogy similar to:
If migrants are allowed in country ( if they are in low ratio), migrants can be saved and doesn’t affect existing population

But if migrants’ number is increased at large, it would be a burden on local populations, local environment and some unique characteristics of local population could be diluted.


Quote:
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
Quote:
(B) the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
particular adaptations ( population of fish that were strayed ) can be survived withuout diltion ( without effecting any danger to local habitat)

Quote:
(D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
Problem: degraded stream ( stream is like a route from degraded REGION to PRISTINE region)
By far what we know fish can repopulate if stray quantity is less otherwise effect local population
But in option D the condition is “stream recover”
Stream recover or doesn’t recover, fish population can still be repopulated.


GMATNinja VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepHailey generis
Show more

The passage says:

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.

Your understanding is incorrect. This sentence means that straying is crucial because it provides a mechanism by which the current location can be repopulated (it is already populated so it can be repopulated) should the fish here disappear.
Say today some fish stray to other streams. Say after 1 month, the condition of this stream deteriorates such that all the fish in it die. After a few months, this stream is cleaned up and its waters can support life again. Then the fish that had strayed can be brought back here to repopulate these waters.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [1]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 21 Sep 2020, 00:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR
Lost in 5th as well,

COnfusion: Salmonids in C are not mentioned LOCALS, what if they are Foreign, then this option can not be valid. But optionA indirectly refers to straying rate more than 40% . please check below my explanation.

Quote:
5. The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations" (see highlighted text) is based on which of the following assumptions?

The condition for lowering the overall fitness of subsequent generations is that the rates of straying should be more than 40 percent overall.


Quote:
(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.

optionA says: disturbing by human activity could increase straying rate by more than 40%.If it is less than 40% then overall fitness may not decrease, so it is necessary to have straying rate over 40% and thus should match the assumption( Option A indirectly refers the staying rate is more than 40%)

Quote:
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
Option C doesn’t mention these Salmonids are native or foreign. If these salmons are not local then their benefit to local adaptations doesn’t LOWER the OVERALL fitness of subsequent generations.


Kindly suggest GMATNinja VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepHailey generis
Show more


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.
(B) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of the total spawning population
(C) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptions.
(D) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect on salmonid straying rates.
(E) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.

Passage tells us:
Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted.

So some fish from stream A stray to stream B. Now stream B fish have some local adaptations. If too many fish from stream A come to stream B, those local adaptations could be lost. This could result in lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations.
So the author is assuming that the local adaptations are beneficial. So (C) is correct.

What could increase the rate of straying is irrelevant. The point is what happens after the rate of straying is increased.
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 21 Sep 2020, 21:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
GMATNinja



It is so disheartened that still I could not choose D over B even after reading the explanations above.

Please check where am I wrong:

Quote:
Look at the second paragraph:

"Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. 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. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted."

Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process ( straying process) provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism ( straying mechanism ) by which a location ( any location that is in new location after fish strayed in nearby stream) can be repopulated should the fish there ( nearby stream) disappear.

This location can not refer to old stream because fish has already strayed from there and if fish has already strayed from old location to new location , it can only repopulate at new location, means at new stream,but not in old stream

Understanding:
Fish stray from degraded REGION to pristine REGION
Occasional stray: Helpful because if fish disappear from natal ,fish can be repopulated
If more than 40% stray:local adaptations maybe diluted

Analogy similar to:
If migrants are allowed in country ( if they are in low ratio), migrants can be saved and doesn’t affect existing population

But if migrants’ number is increased at large, it would be a burden on local populations, local environment and some unique characteristics of local population could be diluted.


Quote:
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
Quote:
(B) the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
particular adaptations ( population of fish that were strayed ) can be survived withuout diltion ( without effecting any danger to local habitat)

Quote:
(D) an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
Problem: degraded stream ( stream is like a route from degraded REGION to PRISTINE region)
By far what we know fish can repopulate if stray quantity is less otherwise effect local population
But in option D the condition is “stream recover”
Stream recover or doesn’t recover, fish population can still be repopulated.


GMATNinja VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepHailey generis

The passage says:

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.

Your understanding is incorrect. This sentence means that straying is crucial because it provides a mechanism by which the current location can be repopulated (it is already populated so it can be repopulated) should the fish here disappear.
Say today some fish stray to other streams. Say after 1 month, the condition of this stream deteriorates such that all the fish in it die. After a few months, this stream is cleaned up and its waters can support life again. Then the fish that had strayed can be brought back here to repopulate these waters.
Show more

Hi AndrewN Sir,

Sorry to be peculiar .

I am not clear in practical terms how the fish can be brought back to repopulate these waters? You mean some humans would do that? How can they find which fishes were disappeared?

If it is by fish itself, then once they disappeared why would they come back? Even they come back , they would come back in their natural flow without any objective of repopulating.

SajjadAhmad, bm2201 ：
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 22 Sep 2020, 12:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR


Hi AndrewN Sir,

Sorry to be peculiar .

I am not clear in practical terms how the fish can be brought back to repopulate these waters? You mean some humans would do that? How can they find which fishes were disappeared?

If it is by fish itself, then once they disappeared why would they come back? Even they come back , they would come back in their natural flow without any objective of repopulating.

SajjadAhmad, bm2201 ：
Show more
Peculiar, imSKR? I myself am a bit of an odd fish, as the saying goes. Go ahead and be peculiar, or, to paraphrase the lyrics of Jimi Hendrix, wave your freak-flag high. If you meant particular, that is okay, too. A little doubt can spur a new stream of thought, one that may lead to progress. To speak to your questions, I took nothing from the passage to indicate that human intervention is necessary for repopulation efforts, apart from reducing the human activities mentioned in the opening line of the passage. No, it seems to be up to the salmon (or salmonids) themselves to repopulate. Why would they come back? I guess you would have to ask the fish. In all seriousness, the passage outlines how some fish intend, through an innate mechanism, to return to their natal stream but go wayward, swimming up the wrong stream and spawning there instead. In other cases, natural disasters or radical changes to the streams brought about by human activity force the fish to enter different streams. Either way, the fish are just being fish, looking for a place to spawn. A stream that has lost life can be repopulated by either wayward fish or displaced fish. So no, their objective is not to repopulate a stream, but simply to spawn the next generation of salmon(ids).

Does that clarify the issue you were having?

- Andrew
avatar
Well0909
avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2019
Last visit: 26 Apr 2022
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 06 Oct 2021, 08:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [2]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 29 Oct 2021, 11:33
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Well0909
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.
Show more
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!
User avatar
GraceSCKao
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 124
Own Kudos:
54
Given Kudos: 1,247
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Posts: 124
Kudos: 54
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 05 Dec 2021, 00:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [2]
Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been e 10 Dec 2021, 19:17
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Question 2


GraceSCKao
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
Show more
You're right that this is an inference question -- in other words, the correct answer choice will NOT be stated directly in the passage. So, you can't use the fact that (D) isn't directly stated in the passage to eliminate (D).

Think about the role of the words "should the stream recover." Here, they LIMIT the circumstances in which an environmentally degraded stream could be repopulated by straying.

The passage tells that low levels of straying mean that a "location can be repopulated should the fish there disappear." There are no limitations placed on why the fish disappeared in the first place, or what happened to the environment after that.

From this, you could make all kinds of inferences -- for example, if the fish disappeared because of over-fishing, then you could infer that straying would allow the location to be repopulated once fishing is limited again in the area.

Equally, you could infer that if the fish disappeared because of environmental degradation, then straying would allow the location to be repopulated once the environment recovers. This is what (D) tells us. Sure, it's just one circumstance out of many possible circumstances. But that limitation is totally fine -- we can still infer (D), so that's the correct answer to question 2.

I hope that helps!
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
17289 posts
miag
189 posts