Thirty years ago, deer and elk in selected parts of the Rocky Mountain

Thirty years ago, deer and elk in selected parts of the Rocky Mountains were first discovered with a condition known as wasting disease. In 1970, two percent of the deer and elk killed by hunters were diagnosed with the disease. In 1995, that percentage had grown to six percent. This increase in the incidence of the disease proves that wasting disease has become much more prevalent in the last twentyfive years.

If true, which one of the following selections most seriously weakens the author’s conclusion?


(A) Wasting disease has not been discovered in domestic livestock or in moose or bighorn sheep, which are also found in significant numbers in the Rocky Mountains. Incorrect

disease in other animals irrelevant

(B) Wasting disease tends to make deer and elk lethargic, making them more easily killed by hunters. Correct

so cant say wasting disease is more prevalent

(C) Since it was first reported, wasting disease has occasionally been diagnosed in deer outside the Rocky Mountains. Incorrect

not related with hunting deer

(D) Hunters have grown more reluctant to cooperate with the authorities in reporting their deer and elk harvest, because if wasting disease is diagnosed in their harvest, the meat will be destroyed. Incorrect

support argument, if this happen more cases of deer or elk with wastings disease can be found

(E) It is very difficult to diagnose wasting disease more than twenty-four hours after death, so many cases of the disease have gone undiagnosed. Incorrect

support argument

VeritasKarishma

Dear Karishma,
Could you elucidate?

Vague answer
(B) Wasting disease tends to make deer and elk lethargic, making them more easily killed by hunters.

If that was true, why the hunters could not kill the same % of deer in 1970 as in 1995 ?
- What hindered them from doing so? Deer's disease in 1970 was less severe than in 1995?
- What is hidden assumption here ? Hunters has begun kill more ?

Thank you in advance.

The disease was first discovered 30 years ago. Around that time, the incidence was 2% among those killed by hunters.
Now, the incidence is 6% among those killed by hunters.

Say there are 1000 deers and 20 of them have wasting disease. Say 100 deers are killed by hunters every year.
25 years ago, 2 of the 100 were found with wasting.
While now, 6 of the 100 are found with wasting.

Is it necessary that now out of 1000 deers, 60 have wasting disease? No.
What if the deers with wasting become slow over time? Then they would be easier to catch and hence the sample may not reflect the population.

The disease was recent at that time many years ago. Perhaps it did not yet have the impact that it does on the animal.
Now, some generations would have passed with wasting so the disease may have matured.

Also note that the other options do not weaken the conclusion at all.

(A) Wasting disease has not been discovered in domestic livestock or in moose or bighorn sheep, which are also found in significant numbers in the Rocky Mountains.

Other animals are irrelevant

(C) Since it was first reported, wasting disease has occasionally been diagnosed in deer outside the Rocky Mountains.

Outside Rocky is irrelevant.

(D) Hunters have grown more reluctant to cooperate with the authorities in reporting their deer and elk harvest, because if wasting disease is diagnosed in their harvest, the meat will be destroyed.

This just says that the sample available today from hunters may be smaller (or perhaps not if many more deer are being hunted today than they were 25 yrs ago.) No impact on our conclusion in either case.

(E) It is very difficult to diagnose wasting disease more than twenty-four hours after death, so many cases of the disease have gone undiagnosed.

Well, then it is possible that there were even more than 6% cases. It does not weaken our conclusion. If at all, it could help our conclusion.

Answer (B)

In D, it does affect our conclusion if the denominator (total hunting incidents) are higher than in reality (reported hunting incidents) since it reduces the % of D & E infected with wasted disease. Therefore, this information does weaken our case in so far as that the data used to make a claim is now suspect? Or are we ruling this out because the data could also go either ways? eg: the proportion of wasting disease i.e. 6% could also be the proportion in under reporting cases, hence not impacting our conclusion?

I'm trying to understand here.

I eliminated B on the grounds that if more D&E are getting lethargic than before, then the claim made by the author WILL stand. To my mind, the info in B can also be spun both ways. If total hunts earlier = 100, wasting disease = 3. Today = 50, wasting disease = 3 (weakens our conclusion since its only % thats changing and not prevalence). But if total hunts = 100, wasting = 6 (indicates that prevalence may also be on the rise since D&E are not magically lethargic in later years).

Request your thoughts on this or if anyone else's?

I don't understand B. After all, if the disease makes animals more lethargic, then it should have been easier to hunt them before as well. Hence the difference between the two years cannot be explained by this fact alone. There must be something else explaining the difference

Once in a hundred CR-questions I really cant agree with the correct answer. And this time Im totally with you.

The animals should (or could) have been just as lethargic in 1970 as in 1995.

Posted from my mobile device

Thirty years ago, deer and elk in selected parts of the Rocky Mountains were first discovered with a condition known as wasting disease. In 1970, two percent of the deer and elk killed by hunters were diagnosed with the disease. In 1995, that percentage had grown to six percent. This increase in the incidence of the disease proves that wasting disease has become much more prevalent in the last twentyfive years.

If true, which one of the following selections most seriously weakens the author’s conclusion?


(A) Wasting disease has not been discovered in domestic livestock or in moose or bighorn sheep, which are also found in significant numbers in the Rocky Mountains.

(B) Wasting disease tends to make deer and elk lethargic, making them more easily killed by hunters.

(C) Since it was first reported, wasting disease has occasionally been diagnosed in deer outside the Rocky Mountains.

(D) Hunters have grown more reluctant to cooperate with the authorities in reporting their deer and elk harvest, because if wasting disease is diagnosed in their harvest, the meat will be destroyed.

(E) It is very difficult to diagnose wasting disease more than twenty-four hours after death, so many cases of the disease have gone undiagnosed.

my POE:
We need to weaken the point that disease is actually not prevalent. Also check PERCENTAGE, you might want to see options related to that
E)If many cases have gone undiagnosed, it is actually strengthening - saying there could be many other deers as well- so out
D)So Hunters are reporting less - so actually the number is even high - out
C)OUTSIDE? irrelevant
A)So what? other animals is not the concern

According to an older forum on Manhattan GMAT, this is NOT a real LSAT question, but a question developed by NOVA prep.

Doing a verbatim Google search of the first phrase and including “LSAT” will almost always yield results. The fact that doing so here yields nothing is informative.

Those questioning the correctness of B have a good point. It to provide an alternative explanation for the evidence/premises from the argument, but fails to do so. It’s not like hunters’ behavior has changed over the last 30 years.

This is tagged as an actual LSAT question. Not good.

so your answer is based on POE, but if we take the logic that the disease 25 years ago produced same lethargy in deers as today, then how does it affect the percentage?

HI Bunuel, I still have some doubts regarding answer choice B. This is true that the more lethargic the dear would be, the easier will be to kill it. But that is also true in 1970s. Then why the figure was less in 1970s.