Last visit was: 29 Apr 2026, 14:31 It is currently 29 Apr 2026, 14:31
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
705-805 (Hard)|   Weaken|      
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,210
Own Kudos:
961
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,210
Kudos: 961
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 16 Jul 2021, 18:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
>> As explained by experts, that hunting has not reached to 5% for many years. --this meaning is because of using the word " closed"

what if the meaning were: hunting was completed 5% much before the scheduled date? then the statement would have been:--?
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being COMPLETED earlier than the scheduled date.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being COMPLETED earlier than the scheduled date.


VeritasKarishma chetan2u GMATNinja - could you please share your views.
Actually I rejected B assuming that hunting was achieved 5% much before the end date. this meaning took me in opposite direction.So I am trying to figure out difference in sentences .
Please suggest.

Thanks!
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,447
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,447
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 19 Jul 2021, 00:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
>> As explained by experts, that hunting has not reached to 5% for many years. --this meaning is because of using the word " closed"

what if the meaning were: hunting was completed 5% much before the scheduled date? then the statement would have been:--?
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being COMPLETED earlier than the scheduled date.
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being COMPLETED earlier than the scheduled date.


VeritasKarishma chetan2u GMATNinja - could you please share your views.
Actually I rejected B assuming that hunting was achieved 5% much before the end date. this meaning took me in opposite direction.So I am trying to figure out difference in sentences .
Please suggest.

Thanks!
Show more

The word "closed" has nothing to do with it.

If I tell you -
"It has been many years since A happened."

What do you understand from this? When did A happen? It happened many years ago. Since then, many years have passed. In these "many years", A has not happened.
avatar
Well0909
avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2019
Last visit: 26 Apr 2022
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 19 Sep 2021, 07:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
@GMATNiga
Why Answer B can't be interpreted as "Because hunters have already hunted over 5% limit in advance, the hunting season has been closed earlier than the scheduled date for many years"?

Therefore, removing the 5% limit can actually help to reduce the SG population.➢Could be strengthening?

Please kindly help, thanks a lot
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 29 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,830
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,133
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,830
 [1]
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 26 Sep 2021, 07:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Well0909
@GMATNiga
Why Answer B can't be interpreted as "Because hunters have already hunted over 5% limit in advance, the hunting season has been closed earlier than the scheduled date for many years"?

Therefore, removing the 5% limit can actually help to reduce the SG population.➢Could be strengthening?

Please kindly help, thanks a lot
Show more
Take a closer look at (B):

Quote:
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
Show more
(B) does not suggest that hunters have gone over the 5% limit for many years. Instead, it indicates that they have NOT gone over that limit for many years. That’s why (B) says it has been many years since the season was closed early. For that reason, (B) indicates that removing the 5% limit will have little effect, and it's the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,251
Own Kudos:
328
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,251
Kudos: 328
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 01 Sep 2022, 09:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi - quick question on (d) ?

Per (D) - snow geese are increasing in population. This "increased population" is settling where ?

Is this "increased population" settling in the artic or the southern region ?

I think as per D, this "increased population" is showing up in the artic region.

If true, the fact would weaken the conclusion.

Why ? Even if you remove the hunting restriction, hunters cant get to the 'increased population' [all of which are settled in the artic region]

Hunters are NOT in the northern region but in the southern region.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 29 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,830
Given Kudos: 2,133
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,830
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 08 Sep 2022, 14:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi - quick question on (d) ?

Per (D) - snow geese are increasing in population. This "increased population" is settling where ?

Is this "increased population" settling in the artic or the southern region ?

I think as per D, this "increased population" is showing up in the artic region.

If true, the fact would weaken the conclusion.

Why ? Even if you remove the hunting restriction, hunters cant get to the 'increased population' [all of which are settled in the artic region]

Hunters are NOT in the northern region but in the southern region.
Show more
(D) tells us that "snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons," but does not specify WHERE those wintering grounds are. They could be even farther south than the current location. There's just no way of knowing the location of this new wintering ground, so we can't assume that it is out of reach for hunters.

That's why (D) doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
dave13
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Last visit: 15 Mar 2026
Posts: 1,086
Own Kudos:
1,138
Given Kudos: 3,851
Posts: 1,086
Kudos: 1,138
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 11 Sep 2022, 01:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
vdadwal
Karishma,
Lets say the hunting season is from Jan to June and for many years the hunters reach the 5% goal in april. How does this weaken the argument that If we drop the restriction altogether than it will help other species.

In D , it is stated that they have moved on to a different location so dropping the restriction will have no affect.

Option B tells you that the restriction has not come into effect since many years. "It has been many years since ..." means the restriction came into effect many years ago and since then, it has NOT come into effect. So if the hunting season is from Jan to June, it has been closing in June only. This means that even if hunters hunt for the entire hunting season, they still do not reach the 5% limit. So removing the restriction will have no effect.

D only tells you that the increasing population has led to colonizing other grounds too. It just tells you that the population has increased a lot and the geese are spreading. It doesn't say that removing the restrictions will not help.
Understand the argument: Snow geese populate the Arctic (i.e. the north pole region) and are displacing other species there. They move south in winters where there numbers are reduced due to hunting. There are restrictions on hunting. The argument says 'remove these restrictions so that the number of geese reduces more so that other species can survive.

Now your option B tells you that the restrictions are ancient and are meaningful today. They haven't come into effect for many years. Then removing the restrictions won't help, isn't it?
On the other hand, option D says that the geese population has increased and now they are also using those grounds in the southern regions that they had not used for many years. How does it imply that removing restrictions will not help? It doesn't imply that.
Show more


KarishmaB if hunting season ends if and when hunters reach 5%, doesnt option B mean that since hunting season ended earlier, then hunters reached 5% earlier , i.e. before end of hunting season
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,447
 [2]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,447
 [2]
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 12 Sep 2022, 03:08
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dave13
KarishmaB
vdadwal
Karishma,
Lets say the hunting season is from Jan to June and for many years the hunters reach the 5% goal in april. How does this weaken the argument that If we drop the restriction altogether than it will help other species.

In D , it is stated that they have moved on to a different location so dropping the restriction will have no affect.

Option B tells you that the restriction has not come into effect since many years. "It has been many years since ..." means the restriction came into effect many years ago and since then, it has NOT come into effect. So if the hunting season is from Jan to June, it has been closing in June only. This means that even if hunters hunt for the entire hunting season, they still do not reach the 5% limit. So removing the restriction will have no effect.

D only tells you that the increasing population has led to colonizing other grounds too. It just tells you that the population has increased a lot and the geese are spreading. It doesn't say that removing the restrictions will not help.
Understand the argument: Snow geese populate the Arctic (i.e. the north pole region) and are displacing other species there. They move south in winters where there numbers are reduced due to hunting. There are restrictions on hunting. The argument says 'remove these restrictions so that the number of geese reduces more so that other species can survive.

Now your option B tells you that the restrictions are ancient and are meaningful today. They haven't come into effect for many years. Then removing the restrictions won't help, isn't it?
On the other hand, option D says that the geese population has increased and now they are also using those grounds in the southern regions that they had not used for many years. How does it imply that removing restrictions will not help? It doesn't imply that.


KarishmaB if hunting season ends if and when hunters reach 5%, doesnt option B mean that since hunting season ended earlier, then hunters reached 5% earlier , i.e. before end of hunting season
Show more


(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

This means that for many years, hunting season has NOT closed earlier than scheduled. So for many years, the 5% quota has not been reached.

'It has been many years since A happened' means 'A has NOT happened for many years.'
User avatar
mcelroytutoring
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2015
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,207
Own Kudos:
2,676
 [1]
Given Kudos: 282
Status:Expert GMAT, GRE, and LSAT Tutor / Coach
Affiliations: Harvard University, A.B. with honors in Government, 2002
Location: United States (CO)
Age: 45 (10 years and counting on GMAT Club!)
GMAT 1: 770 Q47 V48
GMAT 2: 730 Q44 V47
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
GMAT 4: 730 Q48 V42 (Online)
GRE 1: Q168 V169
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 4: 730 Q48 V42 (Online)
GRE 1: Q168 V169
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 1,207
Kudos: 2,676
 [1]
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 14 Feb 2023, 17:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
At its heart, this is a simple question that reminds us that setting and/or removing limits will only have a noticeable effect if people are actually reaching or exceeding those limits in the first place.

For example, removing a speed limit of 500 miles per hour on the highway would be pointless and have no impact on people's driving, since no one can drive that fast anyway.
User avatar
Kimberly77
User avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2024
Posts: 421
Own Kudos:
47
Given Kudos: 5,898
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 450 Q42 V34
Posts: 421
Kudos: 47
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 14 Jun 2023, 02:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

This means that for many years, hunting season has NOT closed earlier than scheduled. So for many years, the 5% quota has not been reached.

'It has been many years since A happened' means 'A has NOT happened for many years.'

Thanks KarishmaB it make better sense now for the front part of the sentence B.
My confusion is if it hasn't reached the target limit, then why is being closed earlier than the scheduled date? Could you help clarify? Thanks.

MartyTargetTestPrep could you help too? Thanks
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,471
Own Kudos:
5,645
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,471
Kudos: 5,645
 [1]
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 14 Jun 2023, 05:29
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kimberly77
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

This means that for many years, hunting season has NOT closed earlier than scheduled. So for many years, the 5% quota has not been reached.

'It has been many years since A happened' means 'A has NOT happened for many years.'

Thanks KarishmaB it make better sense now for the front part of the sentence B.
My confusion is if it hasn't reached the target limit, then why is being closed earlier than the scheduled date? Could you help clarify? Thanks.

MartyTargetTestPrep could you help too? Thanks
Show more
Hi Kimberly77.

Take another look.

You just said that the hunting season "has NOT closed earlier than scheduled."
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,447
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,447
 [1]
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 14 Jun 2023, 05:31
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kimberly77
(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date

This means that for many years, hunting season has NOT closed earlier than scheduled. So for many years, the 5% quota has not been reached.

'It has been many years since A happened' means 'A has NOT happened for many years.'

Thanks KarishmaB it make better sense now for the front part of the sentence B.
My confusion is if it hasn't reached the target limit, then why is being closed earlier than the scheduled date? Could you help clarify? Thanks.

MartyTargetTestPrep could you help too? Thanks
Show more

We are looking for something that undermines the argument.
We are looking for something that says that dropping the restriction will have no effect and that is exactly what (B) does.

It tells us that the restriction level is anyway not reached so dropping the restriction is useless.

You are probably wondering that why does the author suggest dropping the restriction when the restriction level has not been reached in many years?
It is a case of missing information. The author doesn't know that the 5% numbers haven't been reached in many years. He reads that there is this restriction under which the hunting season ends if and when hunting reduces the population by five percent and he suggests to drop the restriction. Then we bring in new information for him in our option that the restriction anyway hasn't played a role in many years. Hence his argument weakens (or falls apart if you wish).
User avatar
Auror_07
User avatar
Joined: 02 May 2023
Last visit: 24 Feb 2026
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
61
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Schools: Tuck '26 (D) LBS '26 (D) Darden '27 (M) Johnson '27 (D) Ross '27 (WD)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q88 V83 DI80
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q48 V40
GPA: 4.0
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Tuck '26 (D) LBS '26 (D) Darden '27 (M) Johnson '27 (D) Ross '27 (WD)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q88 V83 DI80
GMAT 2: 720 Q48 V40
Posts: 106
Kudos: 61
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 10 Jul 2023, 02:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja, KarishmaB, generis - Please help!

This argument recommends relaxing the restriction on hunting of Snow Geese as a possible solution for the recovery of other species, and the question asks you to weaken it.

My pre-thought answers were along the lines of-

Okay, I need a reason why relaxing the restriction won't work..
1. Okay maybe the Snow Geese is too much in number that relaxing restrictions alone as a solution won't work..
2. The restriction, if relaxed, might drastically reduce Snow Geese population..

But the answer is along the lines of - The hunting never closed before the scheduled date from many years.
I am NOT saying that the answer should always be along the lines of the pre-thought ideas, but this one just threw me off completely.

When I read this, I thought okay, maybe the hunters weren't able to bring down the population by 5% before the scheduled date, so it makes sense for the hunting to continue past the deadline as well. But it is not actually weakening the conclusion.

But the reasoning given is, since the deadline weren't being respected, the restriction was never helpful to begin with. I mean, of course after you read the explanation, you tend to think it makes sense, but I could not have come to this conclusion even if I had the luxury of time. How do you work on the answer when you are faced with such a situation? Just bail on the question?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 29 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,830
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,133
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,830
 [1]
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 03 Dec 2023, 09:10
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Auror_07
GMATNinja, KarishmaB, generis - Please help!

This argument recommends relaxing the restriction on hunting of Snow Geese as a possible solution for the recovery of other species, and the question asks you to weaken it.

My pre-thought answers were along the lines of-

Okay, I need a reason why relaxing the restriction won't work..

Okay maybe the Snow Geese is too much in number that relaxing restrictions alone as a solution won't work..

The restriction, if relaxed, might drastically reduce Snow Geese population..

But the answer is along the lines of - The hunting never closed before the scheduled date from many years.

I am NOT saying that the answer should always be along the lines of the pre-thought ideas, but this one just threw me off completely.

When I read this, I thought okay, maybe the hunters weren't able to bring down the population by 5% before the scheduled date, so it makes sense for the hunting to continue past the deadline as well. But it is not actually weakening the conclusion.

But the reasoning given is, since the deadline weren't being respected, the restriction was never helpful to begin with. I mean, of course after you read the explanation, you tend to think it makes sense, but I could not have come to this conclusion even if I had the luxury of time. How do you work on the answer when you are faced with such a situation? Just bail on the question?
Show more
All good questions!

First, I'd be cautious about anticipating the answer choice ahead of time. As you noticed in this question, the correct answer won't always be something you'd come up with on your own.

So what should you do instead? Well, after making sense of the argument, try taking each answer choice on its own merits. Ask yourself: how would this fact impact the argument? Let's try that with answer choice (B):

Quote:
It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
Show more
If this were true, it would mean that during the hunting season, hunters were reducing the population by less than five percent. How would that impact the conclusion? Well, dropping the restriction probably wouldn't lead to a hunters killing more geese. Even if the restriction were raised to 10%, for instance, we know that hunters were routinely killing less than 5%.

Put another way, the restriction wasn't holding back hunters from killing more geese. So dropping the restriction wouldn't lead to them killing more. For that reason, (B) undermines the argument and it's correct.

Overall, anticipating answer choices can be dangerous and is often more trouble than it's worth. For many questions, it will be impossible to pre-think the correct answer, which could make it harder to spot the correct answer when you see it (or easier to fall for a wrong answer if it resembles what you were expecting). For more on that, check out this video.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 705
Own Kudos:
212
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 705
Kudos: 212
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 12 Dec 2023, 05:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argument -
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. - Fact
Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. - Although it introduces contrast, the statement is a fact.
Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover. - Conclusion.

Option Elimination - Weaken

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. - When and Why these restrictions were imposed is out of scope.

(B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. - so, if the hunting season was set from Month 1 to 6, but hunters stopped hunting in Month 2, then removing the limitation will not help. Or maybe the hunters just hunt 1% of snow geese when the limitation was 5%, so even if we remove the limitation, hunters may still hunt 1%. ok.

(C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. - Classic trap. The argument talks about percentages and this talks about the numbers. Out of scope.

(D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. - Goes in the direction of the opposite of what we need. If they recolonize more ground, then removing restrictions should help. At best, a strengthener.

(E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation. - If they face no natural predation, then maybe only hunting can help. At best, it can be a strengthener and not the weaker we need.
User avatar
Contropositive
User avatar
Joined: 21 Oct 2023
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77
Posts: 53
Kudos: 19
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 24 Aug 2024, 00:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
All good questions!

First, I'd be cautious about anticipating the answer choice ahead of time. As you noticed in this question, the correct answer won't always be something you'd come up with on your own.

So what should you do instead? Well, after making sense of the argument, try taking each answer choice on its own merits. Ask yourself: how would this fact impact the argument? Let's try that with answer choice (B):

Quote:
It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
If this were true, it would mean that during the hunting season, hunters were reducing the population by less than five percent. How would that impact the conclusion? Well, dropping the restriction probably wouldn't lead to a hunters killing more geese. Even if the restriction were raised to 10%, for instance, we know that hunters were routinely killing less than 5%.

Put another way, the restriction wasn't holding back hunters from killing more geese. So dropping the restriction wouldn't lead to them killing more. For that reason, (B) undermines the argument and it's correct.

Overall, anticipating answer choices can be dangerous and is often more trouble than it's worth. For many questions, it will be impossible to pre-think the correct answer, which could make it harder to spot the correct answer when you see it (or easier to fall for a wrong answer if it resembles what you were expecting). For more on that, check out this video.

I hope that helps!
Show more
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun KarishmaB MartyMurray

Several expert posts have mentioned that (B) can be taken as: ''hunters were killing less than 5%'', hence weaken.
i can't understand how (B) can be read that way. Please help!!

Below is my understanding of (B):

It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

1. Above option can also mean two things: Since that time, hunting season getting closed on ''scheduled date'' or beyond ''scheduled date''
2. Stimulus didn't mention any ''scheduled date'', so we don't know that hunting didn't go beyond the sheduled date.

In no way, i would have inferred that ''hunters were killing less than 5%
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,447
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,447
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 26 Aug 2024, 00:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Contropositive

GMATNinja
All good questions!

First, I'd be cautious about anticipating the answer choice ahead of time. As you noticed in this question, the correct answer won't always be something you'd come up with on your own.

So what should you do instead? Well, after making sense of the argument, try taking each answer choice on its own merits. Ask yourself: how would this fact impact the argument? Let's try that with answer choice (B):

Quote:
It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.
If this were true, it would mean that during the hunting season, hunters were reducing the population by less than five percent. How would that impact the conclusion? Well, dropping the restriction probably wouldn't lead to a hunters killing more geese. Even if the restriction were raised to 10%, for instance, we know that hunters were routinely killing less than 5%.

Put another way, the restriction wasn't holding back hunters from killing more geese. So dropping the restriction wouldn't lead to them killing more. For that reason, (B) undermines the argument and it's correct.

Overall, anticipating answer choices can be dangerous and is often more trouble than it's worth. For many questions, it will be impossible to pre-think the correct answer, which could make it harder to spot the correct answer when you see it (or easier to fall for a wrong answer if it resembles what you were expecting). For more on that, check out this video.

I hope that helps!
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun KarishmaB MartyMurray

Several expert posts have mentioned that (B) can be taken as: ''hunters were killing less than 5%'', hence weaken.
i can't understand how (B) can be read that way. Please help!!

Below is my understanding of (B):

It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

1. Above option can also mean two things: Since that time, hunting season getting closed on ''scheduled date'' or beyond ''scheduled date''
2. Stimulus didn't mention any ''scheduled date'', so we don't know that hunting didn't go beyond the sheduled date.

In no way, i would have inferred that ''hunters were killing less than 5%
Show more
­Question stem:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

Option (B): It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date.

Option (B), if true, means there is a scheduled date otherwise. So season closes on that date. The restriction ("hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by 5%") can only lead to early closing. What happens if 5% limit is not reached? Nothing. There is a scheduled date for closing of the hunting season and it closes on that date. There is no reason to assume that it will go beyond the scheduled date.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 27 Apr 2026
Posts: 5,632
Own Kudos:
33,438
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,632
Kudos: 33,438
Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases 06 Oct 2025, 06:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let's break down what the argument is saying:

The author presents a problem and solution:
  • Problem: Snow geese population is exploding, and they're displacing other Arctic bird species
  • Current Policy: Hunting must stop when it reduces the snow geese population by 5%
  • Proposed Solution: Remove the 5% restriction → other species will recover

Now, here's what you need to spot:

The argument assumes this causal chain works: Remove the restriction → Hunters kill MORE snow geese → Snow geese population drops → Other bird species recover

Notice how the entire solution depends on one key assumption: that removing the restriction will actually increase the amount of hunting. If that doesn't happen, the whole solution collapses.

Let's look at option B:

"It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date."

Think about what this really tells you. If hunting seasons haven't been closed early in many years, that means hunters aren't even reaching the current 5% limit. The restriction isn't actually stopping them from hunting more right now.

Here's why this destroys the argument:

If hunters aren't hitting the 5% ceiling, then removing that ceiling won't change their behavior at all. It's like raising the speed limit from 65 to 85 mph on a road where everyone naturally drives 55 mph - the higher limit won't make anyone drive faster.

So the proposed solution (removing the restriction) won't lead to more hunting → which means it won't reduce snow geese populations → which means it won't help other species recover. The whole causal chain breaks down.

Why the other options don't work:

  • A: Why the restriction was created historically doesn't affect whether removing it now would work
  • C: Be careful here - this actually supports the argument (if hunting is growing but snow geese are still increasing, we might need even more hunting)
  • D: Where snow geese spend their winters doesn't tell us whether more hunting would help
  • E: This explains why the population is growing but doesn't undermine the hunting solution

The answer is B.

---

For a comprehensive breakdown of how to systematically approach all weaken questions—including the framework for quickly identifying binding vs. non-binding constraints and recognizing the common assumption patterns you'll see across CR questions—check out the complete solution on Neuron by e-GMAT. You'll also discover the advanced techniques for pre-thinking answer choices and avoiding trap answers that look tempting. Plus, you can practice with detailed solutions for hundreds of other official questions on Neuron, complete with practice quizzes and analytics that pinpoint your specific weaknesses.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
509 posts
bhanu29
363 posts