It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 19:28

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3452

Kudos [?]: 926 [0], given: 781

Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 12:48
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?

a. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished.

b. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish.

c. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.

d. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery.

e. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.

Kudos [?]: 926 [0], given: 781

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1481

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 0

Re: Deja Vu CR : Lake Thomas [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 13:18
C. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

Location: Italy
Re: Deja Vu CR : Lake Thomas [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 13:47
[quote="Praetorian"]Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped considerably primarily because of a state program to clean the lake water by means of a water refinery. Ironically, during this same period, the once-abundant population of sunfish in the lake has dwindled.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the sunfish population of Lake Thomas has dwindled at the same time that the lake water has become cleaner?

a. The life spans of sunfish are not diminished by high pollution levels, but the number of offspring they create during their lifetime is diminished. does not address passage

b. Several artificial chemicals are introduced into the lake as a result of the refinement process, but these chemicals are known to have a benign effect on fish. then out we should explain why less fish cleaner water

c. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish. is the right one

d. The heaviest concentrations of sunfish population in the lake are at its northern and northeastern shores, many miles away from the water refinery. but this does not justify the fact that the fish are declinging there should be another reason that could explain this paradox

e. Ever since 1972, a strictly enforced state regulation has prevented anglers from over-fishing Lake Thomas.then the nr of fish should increase
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 14:41
c. The water refinement process creates an environment extremely favorable to pike, a predator fish.

A. This is cause decling even with pollution.

B. No affect on the population "benign"

C. Predator thrives sunfish population declines... correct answer.

D. Out of scope

E. Out of scope.

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 227 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 15:38
no doubt here about C

we need to find alternative reason for lower population of this sunfish, that is not directly related to cleaning the pollution of the lake, which is C

Kudos [?]: 227 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 15:41
I think its C.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3452

Kudos [?]: 926 [0], given: 781

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 17:45
Good Job.

Again, akamaibrah was gracious enough to explain:

"My choice is definitely C.

Remember, we are trying to explain the decrease in Sunfish...

(A) states that number of offspring is DIMINISHED by pollution. Hence, if we REDUCE pollution, offspring will no longer be diminished. This certainly does not explain the decrease in Sunfish -- more likely it inplies that an eventually increase will occur.

(B) states that the chemical do not harm fish. Hence, this does not explain the decrease in Sunfish.

(C) states that a predatory fish thrives in the environment created by the refinery. Nitpicking aside, since the subject of the argument is the "sunfish", it is reasonable to assume that the term "predatory" refers to the relationship of the pike to the sunfish. This would certanly explain a decrease in sunfish and IMO is the best choice.

(D). states that the heaviest concentration of pike are far away from the refinery. While this is consistent with (C), it does not in itself explain an overall decrease in the sunfish population.

(E) does nothing to explain the decrease in Sunfish since 1985 and is irrelavent. In fact, it removes a possible explaination for the decrease."

Kudos [?]: 926 [0], given: 781

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 23:11
Clear winner C.

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 68

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 23:21
I will also go with C.
_________________

Hema

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 111

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: London

Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 05:06
Could you give us the OA Praetorian.

I have a problem with C - it mentions 'creates an environment extremely favorable to pike' - this does not imply that pikes exist in the lake as well. All it says is that the environment is pike friendly.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 325

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 07:44
C it is........

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 748

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

21 Jul 2006, 02:00
C it is

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

21 Jul 2006, 02:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Since 1985, pollution levels in Lake Thomas have dropped

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

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.