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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
siliconbeach
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Last visit: 17 Dec 2015
Posts: 52
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Kellogg '17 Insead Sept '16 (WL) ISB '16 (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q51 V28
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.55
WE:Engineering (Media/Entertainment)
Updated on: 16 Jun 2021, 01:43
Originally posted by siliconbeach on 27 Aug 2015, 14:47.
Last edited by Bunuel on 16 Jun 2021, 01:43, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 16 Jun 2021, 01:43, edited 3 times in total.
Edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
54% (02:10) correct
46%
(02:09)
wrong
based on 2867
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Since 2004, when storm waters introduced Pacific carp to Hoffman Lake, the lake’s population of smallmouth bass has decreased by nearly one third. In the same time period, the lake’s population of sand trout has decreased by approximately 40%. Still, Hoffman Lake is home to more sand trout than to any other type of fish.
Which of the following must be true on the basis of the statements above?
(A) If plans to remove Pacific carp from Lake Hoffman are successful, the population of smallmouth bass and sand trout will increase.
(B) In 2004, there were more sand trout than any other type of fish in Lake Hoffman.
(C) Pacific carp are a natural predator of sand trout and smallmouth bass.
(D) At some point there were more sand trout in Lake Hoffman than smallmouth bass.
(E) If trends are to continue, Pacific carp will one day be the most numerous fish in Hoffman Lake.
Which of the following must be true on the basis of the statements above?
(A) If plans to remove Pacific carp from Lake Hoffman are successful, the population of smallmouth bass and sand trout will increase.
(B) In 2004, there were more sand trout than any other type of fish in Lake Hoffman.
(C) Pacific carp are a natural predator of sand trout and smallmouth bass.
(D) At some point there were more sand trout in Lake Hoffman than smallmouth bass.
(E) If trends are to continue, Pacific carp will one day be the most numerous fish in Hoffman Lake.
04 Mar 2016, 09:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think it's D.
From 2004: sand trout decreased by 40%, smallmouth bass by 33,33%. If now in the lake there are more sand trouts than other kind of fish, it means that in 2004 there were for sure more sand trouth than smallmouth bass.
B cannot be true, what if in 2004 there was another kind of fish in the lake and it was the most numerous one?
From 2004: sand trout decreased by 40%, smallmouth bass by 33,33%. If now in the lake there are more sand trouts than other kind of fish, it means that in 2004 there were for sure more sand trouth than smallmouth bass.
B cannot be true, what if in 2004 there was another kind of fish in the lake and it was the most numerous one?
17 Aug 2021, 06:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Okay, let's take this baby down. Many of the responses in this forum focus on isolated pieces of this question, but I think it might be beneficial to do a full analysis, focusing on the critical-thinking strategies that unlock problems like these. As you study for the GMAT, it is very beneficial to identify patterns and strategies useful for multiple questions, not just one. Here is the full "GMAT Jujitsu" for this question:
Our first item of business is to recognize the problem type. Identifying exactly what the problem is asking is one of the most "critical" things you can do with critical reasoning questions. The question stems asks us to identify a statement that "must be true" given the information in the stimulus. At the basic level, this is an "Inference" question type. Inference questions have a very high burden of proof, as indicated by the phrase "must be true." If an answer either contains new information or leaves open possibilities so the statement isn't necessarily true, we can eliminate it. In my classes, I call these two measuring sticks the "No-New-Information Filter" and "No Wiggle Room." Let's analyze each answer choice to see how it measures up against these standards.
In the end, only one answer choice "must be true" given the facts in the stimulus. All other answer choices either contain new information or leave some "wiggle room." The strategy here is clear: focus on the specific wording in the question stem and don't add in extra information or assume causal relationships that go beyond what the problem explicitly states. Problems like this can be quite easy if you leverage the structure of the question to your advantage.
Our first item of business is to recognize the problem type. Identifying exactly what the problem is asking is one of the most "critical" things you can do with critical reasoning questions. The question stems asks us to identify a statement that "must be true" given the information in the stimulus. At the basic level, this is an "Inference" question type. Inference questions have a very high burden of proof, as indicated by the phrase "must be true." If an answer either contains new information or leaves open possibilities so the statement isn't necessarily true, we can eliminate it. In my classes, I call these two measuring sticks the "No-New-Information Filter" and "No Wiggle Room." Let's analyze each answer choice to see how it measures up against these standards.
Quote:
If you picked this answer, you likely made the assumption that the introduction of Pacific carp into the lake caused the population of smallmouth bass and sand trout to decrease. But this is a "Correlation is not Causation" fallacy. The passage never says that the introduction of Pacific carp caused anything, and the passage also never suggests what will happen if the Pacific carp are removed. Answer choice A definitely fails the "No-New-Information Filter." Eliminate it.
Quote:
The passage states that currently "Hoffman Lake is home to more sand trout than any other type of fish." However, we don't know if this is the case in 2004. I have seen some people do the full mathematical analysis on this answer using the rates of decrease quoted in the stimulus, but such an analysis is completely unnecessary. Don't fall for such a time-wasting trap. After all, the rates mentioned in the problem only describe the decreases in the populations of sand trout and smallmouth bass. While we might be able to numerically prove whether sand trout was more numerous than smallmouth bass in 2004, proving that sand trout was more numerous than "any other type of fish" is way beyond the scope of the problem. The problem never mentions how other fish populations have changed since 2004. Answer choice B leaves open the possibility that another unmentioned fish species may have been dominant in 2004. Just because a passage doesn't mention other species doesn't mean that other species can't or don't exist. I call this the "Lack of Evidence is Not Evidence" fallacy. Because we cannot prove that this answer "must be true," we can eliminate it. Answer choice B has too much wiggle room.
Quote:
Answer choice C is easy to eliminate. It contains new information. There is nothing in the stimulus that indicates the Pacific carp must be predators. If you assumed this, you might have fallen for the "Correlation is not Causation" trap, very similar to the one found in answer choice A.
Quote:
Note that the stimulus states, "Hoffman Lake is home to more sand trout than to any other type of fish." This fact is very clear in the argument. "Any other type of fish" naturally includes smallmouth bass, and the "some point" when sand trout are more numerous than any other type of fish is right now. There is no wiggle room here. Answer choice D must be true. It is the correct answer.
Quote:
Answer choice E has the same problem that answer choice B does. Besides the fact that Pacific carp were "introduced" to Hoffman Lake, we are given no information on the size of this population. We also have no idea if another unmentioned fish species could be dominant in the future. This answer fails both the "No-New-Information Filter" and the "No Wiggle Room" test. Eliminate it.
In the end, only one answer choice "must be true" given the facts in the stimulus. All other answer choices either contain new information or leave some "wiggle room." The strategy here is clear: focus on the specific wording in the question stem and don't add in extra information or assume causal relationships that go beyond what the problem explicitly states. Problems like this can be quite easy if you leverage the structure of the question to your advantage.
