GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Sep 2019, 19:25

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 96
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 09:35
4
18
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:50) correct 24% (02:03) wrong based on 807 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9637
Location: Pune, India
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 22:42
17
1
1
ankit0411 wrote:
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.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
General Discussion
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9637
Location: Pune, India
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2016, 20:47
2
2
ankit0411 wrote:
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.


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)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 70
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 09:42
1
ankit0411 wrote:
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.


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
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Posts: 39
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 12:12
1
ankit0411 wrote:
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.
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 96
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 20:22
anukrati wrote:
ankit0411 wrote:
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.
_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Posts: 39
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa island  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 20:48
ankit0411 wrote:
anukrati wrote:
ankit0411 wrote:
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.


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
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 121
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2012, 03:42
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 405
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jan 2013, 07:17
ankit0411 wrote:
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.


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
_________________
Impossible is nothing to God.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 218
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2015, 05:01
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
_________________
Apoorv

I realize that i cannot change the world....But i can play a part :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Posts: 256
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
Schools: LBS '22, ISB '20, IE '22
GPA: 3.6
WE: Marketing (Entertainment and Sports)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2019, 06:49
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.
VP
VP
User avatar
P
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1021
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2019, 17:07
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.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if you like my post pls!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth   [#permalink] 25 Jul 2019, 17:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne