Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 06:31 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 06:31
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
505-555 Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
ankit0411
User avatar
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 28 May 2012
Last visit: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
500
 [54]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
GPA: 3.33
WE:Information Technology (Retail: E-commerce)
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
Posts: 83
Kudos: 500
 [54]
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 09 Oct 2012, 09:35
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
45
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:48) correct 20% (02:07) wrong based on 2317 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,003
 [32]
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: 77,003
 [32]
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 09 Oct 2012, 22:42
27
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.
Show more


To weaken, we first need to find the conclusion.
Conclusion: The plan may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Notice here that the author says 'may serve the interests' so he is not very particular about the plan serving the interests of agriculture. But he says that it will 'clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. If we want to weaken the conclusion, we should try to weaken 'will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'.
We need to prove that the plan 'may not increase' the threat.
Notice that none of the options other than (C) are relevant. (A) talks about comparison between domestic and wildlife. (B) and (D) don't talk about wildlife. (E) says there is no other way which is irrelevant.

(C) says that rabbits are endangering bilbies (by reducing their food). The plan will reduce the rabbit population which will be good for the bilbies. It might infect bilbies too which will be bad for the bilbies. We don't know what the overall effect will be. Hence, we can say that the plan 'may not increase the threat or it may'. We have cast a shade of doubt on the conclusion which was 'the plan will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. This is what we set out to do.
General Discussion
User avatar
adineo
User avatar
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Last visit: 15 Aug 2017
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
113
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Status:faciendo quod indiget fieri
Posts: 55
Kudos: 113
 [1]
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 09 Oct 2012, 09:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.
Show more

Conclusion : The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Anything that weakens the conclusion is our answer.

A: out of scope no discussion regarding domestic animals
b: has no relation with our conclusion or the virus. Out of scope
c: Correct. AS this weakens the conclusion. This states overgrazing is in ANYCASE killing bilbies. If we take chance in which we will kill rabbits but bilbies MIGHT also get infected, it will NOT increase threat to wildlife. Hence Weaken the conc.
d:No relation in this case so out of scope
e:this strengthens the conc
User avatar
anukrati
User avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Last visit: 07 Jul 2017
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
71
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Schools: CBS '15 (S) Anderson '15 (S) Ross '15 (D) McDonough '15 (WL) Goizueta '15 (D)
Schools: CBS '15 (S) Anderson '15 (S) Ross '15 (D) McDonough '15 (WL) Goizueta '15 (D)
Posts: 35
Kudos: 71
 [1]
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 09 Oct 2012, 12:12
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
-- This option is still showing negative effect on Wildlife. Therefore, Incorrect
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
--- This is neutral. This show neither of the effects on agriculture or wildlife.Therefore, Incorrect
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
--- This shows that plan has positive effect on native wildlife. Therefore, Correct
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
--- This is stated in premise. Therefore, Incorrect
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
--- This is still showing the negative effect on wildlife.

Plz discuss each answer choice.
Show more

Premise -
1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture
2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby

Conclusion -
1) Plan will have positive effect on agriculture
2) Plan will have negative effect on native wildlife.

Approach -
We need to find an option which will show that
1) either plan will have negative effect on agriculture
2) or plan will have positive effect on agriculture.
OR BOTH.

Hope this helps.
User avatar
ankit0411
User avatar
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 28 May 2012
Last visit: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
500
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
GPA: 3.33
WE:Information Technology (Retail: E-commerce)
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
Posts: 83
Kudos: 500
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 09 Oct 2012, 20:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anukrati
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
-- This option is still showing negative effect on Wildlife. Therefore, Incorrect
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
--- This is neutral. This show neither of the effects on agriculture or wildlife.Therefore, Incorrect
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
--- This shows that plan has positive effect on native wildlife. Therefore, Correct
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
--- This is stated in premise. Therefore, Incorrect
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
--- This is still showing the negative effect on wildlife.

Plz discuss each answer choice.

Premise -
1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture
2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby

Conclusion -
1) Plan will have positive effect on agriculture
2) Plan will have negative effect on native wildlife.

Approach -
We need to find an option which will show that
1) either plan will have negative effect on agriculture
2) or plan will have positive effect on agriculture.
OR BOTH.

Hope this helps.
Show more

I don't think option C states that the plan will have a positive effect, I think the rabbits are already having a negative effect on the native marsupial, and hence gives us a reason that the virus will not have worsen this situation further.
User avatar
anukrati
User avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Last visit: 07 Jul 2017
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
71
Given Kudos: 6
Schools: CBS '15 (S) Anderson '15 (S) Ross '15 (D) McDonough '15 (WL) Goizueta '15 (D)
Schools: CBS '15 (S) Anderson '15 (S) Ross '15 (D) McDonough '15 (WL) Goizueta '15 (D)
Posts: 35
Kudos: 71
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 09 Oct 2012, 20:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankit0411
anukrati
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
-- This option is still showing negative effect on Wildlife. Therefore, Incorrect
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
--- This is neutral. This show neither of the effects on agriculture or wildlife.Therefore, Incorrect
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
--- This shows that plan has positive effect on native wildlife. Therefore, Correct
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
--- This is stated in premise. Therefore, Incorrect
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
--- This is still showing the negative effect on wildlife.

Plz discuss each answer choice.

Premise -
1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture
2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby

Conclusion -
1) Plan will have positive effect on agriculture
2) Plan will have negative effect on native wildlife.

Approach -
We need to find an option which will show that
1) either plan will have negative effect on agriculture
2) or plan will have positive effect on agriculture.
OR BOTH.

Hope this helps.

I don't think option C states that the plan will have a positive effect, I think the rabbits are already having a negative effect on the native marsupial, and hence gives us a reason that the virus will not have worsen this situation further.
Show more

By Positive effect I dont mean literally positive effect.
When you are solving CR question. You need to find logic which suits best for you and how you can deduce the same.
For me positive effect was nothing but ( any effect that shows no negative effect on bilbies).
As in C, it is stated that since rabbit are taking away the plant on which bilbies feed, so by killing rabbit bilbies are getting their food back.
So it is in a way showing reverse of negative effect on bilbies.

Thanks
User avatar
sidhu09
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Last visit: 23 Nov 2012
Posts: 89
Own Kudos:
182
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 89
Kudos: 182
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 08 Nov 2012, 03:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The hint lies in the last sentence.

"The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife"
Agriculture is given the priority over the threat to native wildlife.

Choice C - Best pick
User avatar
mbaiseasy
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Last visit: 29 Dec 2013
Posts: 322
Own Kudos:
2,049
Given Kudos: 11
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: Full Time MBA (A$)
GPA: 3.23
Schools: Full Time MBA (A$)
Posts: 322
Kudos: 2,049
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 07 Jan 2013, 07:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.
Show more

Kill rabbits with virus - bad for bilbies - threat to native wildlife

A. Wildlife not domestic animals... Out of scope!
B. strengthener...
C. Virus means more food for bilbies... Weakener
D. How bout bilbies? Does nothing to weaken
E. doesn't tackle the issue of whether it is really or not really a threat

Answer: C
avatar
apoorv601
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2015
Last visit: 27 Nov 2017
Posts: 197
Own Kudos:
390
Given Kudos: 57
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: MIT-LGO '18 Ross '18 Tepper '18 Krannert '18 Fisher '18 Kelley '18 Scheller '18 Smeal Penn'18 ISB '17 W. P. Carey Arizona State '18
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Schools: MIT-LGO '18 Ross '18 Tepper '18 Krannert '18 Fisher '18 Kelley '18 Scheller '18 Smeal Penn'18 ISB '17 W. P. Carey Arizona State '18
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Posts: 197
Kudos: 390
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 31 May 2015, 05:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C
Conclusion - The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife
Premises - Use of virus; chance of virus affecting the bilby
Weaken - That govt plan would not increase the threat to bilby

C states that rabbits are eating away bilby food source and thus eliminating rabbits can increase bilby population - this is best choice
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,003
 [4]
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: 77,003
 [4]
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 11 May 2016, 20:47
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.
Show more

Responding to a pm:

Between (A) and (C):
Premises:
- Rabbits are a menace to agriculture.
- The government proposes to use a virus to control their population.
- However, the virus could infect the bilby.

Conclusion: The plan may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

Notice here that the author says 'may serve the interests' so he is not very particular about the plan serving the interests of agriculture. But he says that it will 'clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. If we want to weaken the conclusion, we should try to weaken 'will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'.
We need to prove that the plan 'may not increase' the threat to wildlife.

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.

The conclusion clearly says "...increase the threat to native wildlife".
The author is worried about the threat to wildlife. (A) tells us that the virus will be less of a threat to domestic animals. The author is not worried about domestic animals at all. His concern is only wildlife. (A) doesn't weaken his conclusion that the plan will not threaten WILDLIFE.

C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.

(C) says that rabbits are endangering bilbies (by reducing their food). The plan will reduce the rabbit population which will be good for the bilbies. It might infect bilbies too which will be bad for the bilbies. We don't know what the overall effect will be. Hence, we can say that the plan 'may not increase the threat or it may'. We have cast a shade of doubt on the conclusion which was 'the plan will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. This is what we set out to do.

Answer (C)
User avatar
kavach
User avatar
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Last visit: 06 Jul 2021
Posts: 178
Own Kudos:
176
Given Kudos: 687
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
Schools: ISB '20 LBS '22 IE '22 Duke Fuqua SSE Int'l Business CEMS MiM "22 (S) ESSEC MiM "22 (S)
GPA: 3.6
WE:Marketing (Hospitality and Tourism)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB '20 LBS '22 IE '22 Duke Fuqua SSE Int'l Business CEMS MiM "22 (S) ESSEC MiM "22 (S)
Posts: 178
Kudos: 176
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 07 Jul 2019, 06:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise -
1) Overgrazing causes damage to agriculture
2) government plan to introduce virus - this virus helps in eradicating rabbit population but chances are also there that it will infect bilby

Conclusion -
1) The plan will have a positive effect on agriculture
2) The plan will have a negative effect on native wildlife.

Approach -
We need to find an option which will show that
1) either plan will have a negative effect on agriculture
2) or plan will have a positive effect on agriculture.
OR BOTH.

Hope this helps.
User avatar
dcummins
User avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 1,064
Own Kudos:
2,326
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: 2,326
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 25 Jul 2019, 17:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument is that the government's plan may serve the interests of agriculture but it will INCREASE the threat to native wildlife.
This plan is to introduce a virus that kills out rabbits but also threatens (to an unknown degree) the population of the bilby.

[This actually happened in Australia - the virus is called the myxomatosis virus and it's quite horrible what it does to rabbits - Cats are a more concerning threat now!]

What weakens this argument?
A the argument isn't concerned with domesticated animals. It's concerned with the bilby. Incorrect.
B this doesn't weaken the plan. This strengthens the cause for some external influence actually.
C this tells us that rabbits are taking away the food source of the bilby and are endangering the bilby. Endangering is a pretty heavy term. The plan only increases the threat to the bilby, it doesn't endanger them. So this could clearly presents a greater threat to the Bilby. As such, this weakens the argument.
D is incorrect - what is true of others may not be relevant or true of our plan.
E is incorrect - if anything this suggests that we should go full steam ahead with the plan, so it doesn't weaken the argument at all.
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
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 23 Jul 2020, 08:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.


To weaken, we first need to find the conclusion.
Conclusion: The plan may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Notice here that the author says 'may serve the interests' so he is not very particular about the plan serving the interests of agriculture. But he says that it will 'clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. If we want to weaken the conclusion, we should try to weaken 'will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'.
We need to prove that the plan 'may not increase' the threat.
Notice that none of the options other than (C) are relevant. (A) talks about comparison between domestic and wildlife. (B) and (D) don't talk about wildlife. (E) says there is no other way which is irrelevant.

(C) says that rabbits are endangering bilbies (by reducing their food). The plan will reduce the rabbit population which will be good for the bilbies. It might infect bilbies too which will be bad for the bilbies. We don't know what the overall effect will be. Hence, we can say that the plan 'may not increase the threat or it may'. We have cast a shade of doubt on the conclusion which was 'the plan will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. This is what we set out to do.
Show more


Conclusion: The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

bilby, an endangered native marsupial == animal
native wildlife.== animal

B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits. (B. There are no species of animals ( wildlife or bilbies) on the island that prey on the rabbits( killed due to virus).)
There are no animals on island no animal (including marsupial and wild animal) would feed on rabbits that were killed by virus. Hence no danger of spreading virus to any animal (including native wildlife)
So clearly weaken the threat to native wildlife

C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
>> the discussion started: Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. Because rabbits maybe eating lot of these plants anyways.
Moreoever conclusion is about threat to native wildlife. But this options talks about bilbies.


Please help to reach at correct answer considering above lines of thoughts.

VeritasKarishma
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,003
 [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: 77,003
 [1]
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 23 Jul 2020, 23:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR
VeritasKarishma
ankit0411
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

Plz discuss each answer choice.


To weaken, we first need to find the conclusion.
Conclusion: The plan may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Notice here that the author says 'may serve the interests' so he is not very particular about the plan serving the interests of agriculture. But he says that it will 'clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. If we want to weaken the conclusion, we should try to weaken 'will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'.
We need to prove that the plan 'may not increase' the threat.
Notice that none of the options other than (C) are relevant. (A) talks about comparison between domestic and wildlife. (B) and (D) don't talk about wildlife. (E) says there is no other way which is irrelevant.

(C) says that rabbits are endangering bilbies (by reducing their food). The plan will reduce the rabbit population which will be good for the bilbies. It might infect bilbies too which will be bad for the bilbies. We don't know what the overall effect will be. Hence, we can say that the plan 'may not increase the threat or it may'. We have cast a shade of doubt on the conclusion which was 'the plan will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. This is what we set out to do.


Conclusion: The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

bilby, an endangered native marsupial == animal
native wildlife.== animal

B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits. (B. There are no species of animals ( wildlife or bilbies) on the island that prey on the rabbits( killed due to virus).)
There are no animals on island no animal (including marsupial and wild animal) would feed on rabbits that were killed by virus. Hence no danger of spreading virus to any animal (including native wildlife)
So clearly weaken the threat to native wildlife

C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
>> the discussion started: Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. Because rabbits maybe eating lot of these plants anyways.
Moreoever conclusion is about threat to native wildlife. But this options talks about bilbies.


Please help to reach at correct answer considering above lines of thoughts.

VeritasKarishma
Show more

When the argument says "native wildlife", it is referring to "native bilbies".

(B) No animals prey on the rabbits means other animals will not be affected by what happens to rabbits. (Native bilby may get the virus if it is introduced in rabbits. they don't need to prey on rabbits to get the virus. If you introduce a virus in the ecosystem, it will spread. Other animals may not catch it because their DNA is different but bilby may hence bilby gets endangered)

This option does not weaken the idea that bilby may get affected by virus too and hence introducing the virus puts it in danger. Hence it doesn't weaken our stand that the virus is a threat to native wildlife (bilby)

(C) Rabbits are endangering bilbies by eating their food. Introducing the virus will reduce rabbit population so bilbies will have more food available. Hence introducing virus works in favour of bilbies. Of course, bilbies still could catch the virus which would work against them. So we don't now overall what the virus will do to bilby population. So we have introduced a question mark on 'virus is clearly a threat to native wildlife (bilby)' That is all we needed to do - weaken the conclusion.
User avatar
A_Nishith
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 455
Own Kudos:
199
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 455
Kudos: 199
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth 29 Jun 2025, 07:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
To weaken, we first need to find the conclusion.
Conclusion: The plan may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.
Notice here that the author says 'may serve the interests' so he is not very particular about the plan serving the interests of agriculture. But he says that it will 'clearly increase the threat to wildlife'. If we want to weaken the conclusion, we should try to weaken 'will clearly increase the threat to wildlife'.

(C) Rabbits are endangering bilbies by eating their food. Introducing the virus will reduce rabbit population so bilbies will have more food available. Hence introducing virus works in favour of bilbies. Of course, bilbies still could catch the virus which would work against them. So we don't now overall what the virus will do to bilby population. So we have introduced a question mark on 'virus is clearly a threat to native wildlife (bilby)' That is all we needed to do - weaken the conclusion.

Answer: C
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts