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

It is currently 21 Oct 2019, 15:43

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

Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 465
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: WHU MBA"20 (A)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2015, 10:13
5
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:55) correct 40% (02:06) wrong based on 389 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton ?

A. It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
B. It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits.
C. It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly.
D. It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed.
E. It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms.

Source: PowerScore CR Bible

Did you like the question ? Please don't forget - Kudo's are the best way to thank !

_________________
When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4472
Re: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2015, 15:48
1
BrainLab wrote:
Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton ?

A. It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
B. It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits.
C. It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly.
D. It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed.
E. It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms.

Source: PowerScore CR Bible

Dear BrainLab,
I'm happy to respond. :-) This question really doesn't have the feel of an official GMAT CR question.

The argument has a formal structure of A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D, and the statement in question is one of these links.
(A) it is not an hypothesis
(B) it is not an example
(C) promising
(D) & (E) zooplankton feeding phytoplankton is part of the nature cycle: this phenomenon is not a problem!

The detail is mentioned in the context of demonstrating how changes in patterns of upwelling nutrients eventually impact microscopic sea life. In other words, it helps us understand how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly. This is precisely what (C) says.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 465
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: WHU MBA"20 (A)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2015, 01:02
mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear BrainLab,
I'm happy to respond. :-) This question really doesn't have the feel of an official GMAT CR question.

The argument has a formal structure of A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D, and the statement in question is one of these links.
(A) it is not an hypothesis
(B) it is not an example
(C) promising
(D) & (E) zooplankton feeding phytoplankton is part of the nature cycle: this phenomenon is not a problem!

The detail is mentioned in the context of demonstrating how changes in patterns of upwelling nutrients eventually impact microscopic sea life. In other words, it helps us understand how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly. This is precisely what (C) says.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)


Hi Mike, thanks for the response, nice explanation. I've answered this question correctly, I agree with you, it's not a 100% Gmat like question, it's from CR Bible, and they usually post LSAT questions.

Here is my solution:

Rise of 2 degrees --> affects vertical mixing of sea water --> affects upwelling nutrients to Phytoplankton --> affetcs Zooplanktion, as it feeds upon Phyto.. --> affects the whole food chain --> (restating the conclusion at the begining) declines are inevitable (declines seabird and seabird population)


Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton ?

A. It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients. --> it's not a hypothesis/conclusion
B. It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits. --> this argument is intended to provide that rise of just 2 degrees affects ...
C. It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly. --> CORRECT. That's the first element in my reasoning chain state above
D. It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed. --> it's not stated in the argument that some actions should be maintained against global warming
E. It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms[/color]. --> it's TOO extreme, the argument is talking about some seabirds and fishes and not about ALL organisms

_________________
When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4472
Re: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2016, 15:56
rezwan001 wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry,

Thanks for your input. Just a quick question,
In the last line of the argument it mentions "feed the rest of the food chain", can "rest of the food chain" imply "to all organisms" mentioned in E?

Thanks and Regards

Dear rezwan001,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

The answer is no. Think about it this way. We don't need to know advanced biology, but we just need to think about some basic everyday facts.

What do you and I, as humans, eat? We eat plants and animals. The land plants we eat are not part of the food chain that begins with phytoplankton. The land animals we eat in turn eat land plants, so they are not part of that food chain either. Now, if we eat fish or other sea critters, that might be part of a food chain that include the phytoplankton. But if for some reasons, all humans everywhere had to stop eating all food from the sea, of course some people would be disappointed, but the human race as a whole would not die off even if we all had to stop eating sea food. There are large quantities of land plants and land animals that can keep at least most of the human race still alive, even with the total absence of sea food. Therefore, we, and the land animals & plants, are not part of the food chain that depends on the phytoplankton, and the "rest of the food chain" is not synonymous with "all organisms."

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Sep 2015
Posts: 62
Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global war  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2017, 01:11
2
Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.

The boldface portion plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

A. It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
B. It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits.
C. It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals directly.
D. It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed.
E. It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Sep 2015
Posts: 62
Re: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global war  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2017, 01:13
1
1
Question explanation:

(A): The portion referenced in the question stem is not a hypothesis, but rather a statement of fact.
(B): The statement referenced in the question stem is not an example of the way the mixing of seawater affects feeding habits, but rather another premise that is then combined with the vertical mixing premise to help support the conclusion.
(C): This is the correct answer. The phrase “it helps show” describes a premise, and in this case the premise is used to support a statement about
the effect of temperature changes on fish and seabirds.
(D): The argument does not take a position that global warming should be curtailed. Instead, the argument shows how small changes in sea temperature lead to population declines, and no opinion of those effects is stated.
(E): This is an Exaggerated Answer. The argument specifically indicates that fish and seabirds populations will decline. This answer choices states that all organisms are threatened.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 May 2018
Posts: 9
Re: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2019, 01:42
Can someone explain how "larger animals" is not causing any ambiguity in the answer choice? Ignoring the other answer choice and analyzing the Choice C independently, how can we comment on "larger" animals if no reference is present in the stimulus for "larger" or "smaller" animals? Fish and Seabirds are just organisms and no comparison has been presented on their relative size with any other animal in the sea.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature   [#permalink] 22 Sep 2019, 01:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature

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





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