Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
10 Mar 2024, 04:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
70% (02:09) correct
30%
(02:16)
wrong
based on 1111
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Sea otters in Kedrick Bay feed on sea urchins and thus keep the local sea urchin population from growing large enough to destroy the kelp beds on which the urchins feed. Therefore, any oil spill that destroyed the sea otter population in Kedrick Bay would guarantee the destruction of the kelp beds by the urchins.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the reasoning in the argument above?
A. An oil spill severe enough to destroy the Kedrick Bay otter population would be likely to diminish the populations of other animal species that feed on Kedrick Bay’s sea urchins.
B. If the population of sea otters in Kedrick Bay declined in number as the result of an oil spill, sea otters from other locales would not soon replace them.
C. In locales where both sea urchins and sea otters are present, sea urchins are the sea otter’s main food source.
D. Because of the pattern of ocean currents in and around Kedrick Bay, there is little likelihood that even a major oil spill in the area would affect the size of the local sea otter population.
E. The sea urchin population in Kedrick Bay would be likely to be harmed by any oil spill that reduced the size of the local sea otter population.
GMAT-Club-Forum-f6ado0vh.png [ 101.44 KiB | Viewed 3091 times ]
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the reasoning in the argument above?
A. An oil spill severe enough to destroy the Kedrick Bay otter population would be likely to diminish the populations of other animal species that feed on Kedrick Bay’s sea urchins.
B. If the population of sea otters in Kedrick Bay declined in number as the result of an oil spill, sea otters from other locales would not soon replace them.
C. In locales where both sea urchins and sea otters are present, sea urchins are the sea otter’s main food source.
D. Because of the pattern of ocean currents in and around Kedrick Bay, there is little likelihood that even a major oil spill in the area would affect the size of the local sea otter population.
E. The sea urchin population in Kedrick Bay would be likely to be harmed by any oil spill that reduced the size of the local sea otter population.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-f6ado0vh.png [ 101.44 KiB | Viewed 3091 times ]
Updated on: 23 Jul 2024, 09:24
Originally posted by MartyMurray on 10 Mar 2024, 08:21.
Last edited by MartyMurray on 23 Jul 2024, 09:24, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by MartyMurray on 23 Jul 2024, 09:24, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Sea otters in Kedrick Bay feed on sea urchins and thus keep the local sea urchin population from growing large enough to destroy the kelp beds on which the urchins feed. Therefore, any oil spill that destroyed the sea otter population in Kedrick Bay would guarantee the destruction of the kelp beds by the urchins.
The argument's conclusion is the following:
any oil spill that destroyed the sea otter population in Kedrick Bay would guarantee the destruction of the kelp beds by the urchins
The support for the conclusion is the following fact:
Sea otters in Kedrick Bay feed on sea urchins and thus keep the local sea urchin population from growing large enough to destroy the kelp beds on which the urchins feed.
So, basically the reasoning is that, since sea otters keep the local sea urchin population from growing large enough to destroy the kelp beds, if the otters disappeared because of an oil spill, the kelp beds would for sure be destroyed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the reasoning in the argument above?
I'm curious to see what the answer could be because the argument is pretty convincing, and the correct answer will somehow cast doubt on the conclusion.
A. An oil spill severe enough to destroy the Kedrick Bay otter population would be likely to diminish the populations of other animal species that feed on Kedrick Bay’s sea urchins.
This choice supports rather than casts doubt on the conclusion.
After all, if an oil spill would diminish the populations of other small animal species that feed on the sea urchins, then there's even more reason to believe that, if an oil spill destroyed the sea otter population, the sea urchins would become sufficiently numerous to destroy the kelp beds.
Eliminate.
B. If the population of sea otters in Kedrick Bay declined in number as the result of an oil spill, sea otters from other locales would not soon replace them.
This choice supports rather than casts doubt on the conclusion.
After all, this choice helps to confirm that the sea urchins would become sufficiently numerous to destroy the kelp beds if an oil spill caused the sea otter population to decline by confirming that other sea otters would not show up to eat the sea urchins.
Eliminate.
C. In locales where both sea urchins and sea otters are present, sea urchins are the sea otter’s main food source.
This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, regardless of whether sea urchins are the otters' main food source, the passage states as fact that the otters keep the sea urchin population in check by eating them.
Eliminate.
D. Because of the pattern of ocean currents in and around Kedrick Bay, there is little likelihood that even a major oil spill in the area would affect the size of the local sea otter population.
To see why this choice does not weaken the argument, let's review the argument's conclusion:
any oil spill that destroyed the sea otter population in Kedrick Bay would guarantee the destruction of the kelp beds by the urchins
So, the conclusion is basically that, IF an oil spill destroys the sea otter population, urchins will destroy the kelp beds.
Now, this choice says, basically, that it's unlikely that an oil spill will destroy the sea otter population.
Notice that the fact that it's unlikely that an oil spill will destroy the sea otter population does not change what will occur if an oil spill does somehow destroy the sea otter population. After all, even if it's unlikely that an oil spill will destroy the sea otter population, it could still be the case that, if an oil spill does destroy the sea otter population, urchins will destroy the kelp beds.
So, this choice misses the point, and we could say that this choice weakens the case for the wrong conclusion.
This choice weakens the case for the conclusion that IT'S LIKELY THAT an oil spill WILL destroy the sea otter population and thus result in the destruction of the kelp beds by urchins.
We need a choice that weakens the case for the conclusion that, IF a spill destroys the sea otter population, urchins will destroy the kelp beds.
So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
Eliminate.
E. The sea urchin population in Kedrick Bay would be likely to be harmed by any oil spill that reduced the size of the local sea otter population.
This choice weakens the argument by showing that even thought the premise is true, the conclusion may not be.
After all, even if the sea otters are keeping the sea urchin population in check, given what this choice says, the sea urchins may not become sufficiently numerous to destroy the kelp beds if an oil spill destroys the sea otter population because an oil spill will likely reduce the population of sea urchins as well.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
The argument's conclusion is the following:
any oil spill that destroyed the sea otter population in Kedrick Bay would guarantee the destruction of the kelp beds by the urchins
The support for the conclusion is the following fact:
Sea otters in Kedrick Bay feed on sea urchins and thus keep the local sea urchin population from growing large enough to destroy the kelp beds on which the urchins feed.
So, basically the reasoning is that, since sea otters keep the local sea urchin population from growing large enough to destroy the kelp beds, if the otters disappeared because of an oil spill, the kelp beds would for sure be destroyed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously call into question the reasoning in the argument above?
I'm curious to see what the answer could be because the argument is pretty convincing, and the correct answer will somehow cast doubt on the conclusion.
A. An oil spill severe enough to destroy the Kedrick Bay otter population would be likely to diminish the populations of other animal species that feed on Kedrick Bay’s sea urchins.
This choice supports rather than casts doubt on the conclusion.
After all, if an oil spill would diminish the populations of other small animal species that feed on the sea urchins, then there's even more reason to believe that, if an oil spill destroyed the sea otter population, the sea urchins would become sufficiently numerous to destroy the kelp beds.
Eliminate.
B. If the population of sea otters in Kedrick Bay declined in number as the result of an oil spill, sea otters from other locales would not soon replace them.
This choice supports rather than casts doubt on the conclusion.
After all, this choice helps to confirm that the sea urchins would become sufficiently numerous to destroy the kelp beds if an oil spill caused the sea otter population to decline by confirming that other sea otters would not show up to eat the sea urchins.
Eliminate.
C. In locales where both sea urchins and sea otters are present, sea urchins are the sea otter’s main food source.
This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, regardless of whether sea urchins are the otters' main food source, the passage states as fact that the otters keep the sea urchin population in check by eating them.
Eliminate.
D. Because of the pattern of ocean currents in and around Kedrick Bay, there is little likelihood that even a major oil spill in the area would affect the size of the local sea otter population.
To see why this choice does not weaken the argument, let's review the argument's conclusion:
any oil spill that destroyed the sea otter population in Kedrick Bay would guarantee the destruction of the kelp beds by the urchins
So, the conclusion is basically that, IF an oil spill destroys the sea otter population, urchins will destroy the kelp beds.
Now, this choice says, basically, that it's unlikely that an oil spill will destroy the sea otter population.
Notice that the fact that it's unlikely that an oil spill will destroy the sea otter population does not change what will occur if an oil spill does somehow destroy the sea otter population. After all, even if it's unlikely that an oil spill will destroy the sea otter population, it could still be the case that, if an oil spill does destroy the sea otter population, urchins will destroy the kelp beds.
So, this choice misses the point, and we could say that this choice weakens the case for the wrong conclusion.
This choice weakens the case for the conclusion that IT'S LIKELY THAT an oil spill WILL destroy the sea otter population and thus result in the destruction of the kelp beds by urchins.
We need a choice that weakens the case for the conclusion that, IF a spill destroys the sea otter population, urchins will destroy the kelp beds.
So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
Eliminate.
E. The sea urchin population in Kedrick Bay would be likely to be harmed by any oil spill that reduced the size of the local sea otter population.
This choice weakens the argument by showing that even thought the premise is true, the conclusion may not be.
After all, even if the sea otters are keeping the sea urchin population in check, given what this choice says, the sea urchins may not become sufficiently numerous to destroy the kelp beds if an oil spill destroys the sea otter population because an oil spill will likely reduce the population of sea urchins as well.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
General Discussion
18 Jul 2024, 08:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
MartyMurray
Hi,
I am quite confused about option D. As decribed in the passage, sea otters feed on sea urchins, which ultimately prevents sea urchins from detroying the kelp beds. According to option D, if it is less likely that oil spill will reduce the population of sea otters, doesn't it mean that sea otters will continue feeding on sea urchins, and thus keeping the kelp beds from getting destroyed?
Thanks!
