NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 15:27 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 15:27
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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

To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   3   
Tags:
Difficulty: 655-705 Levelx   Weakenx                           
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
dgr8sandeep
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jan 2013
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 279 [252]
Given Kudos: 86
Schools: Fisher '17 (II) Smith '18 (A) Jones '18 (WL)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
Send PM
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 12 Jun 2021, 01:41
22
Kudos
230
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:53) correct 37% (02:08) wrong based on 8065 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.

(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.

(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.

(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.

(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water for migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C

Originally posted by dgr8sandeep on 03 Sep 2015, 03:45.
Last edited by Bunuel on 12 Jun 2021, 01:41, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [43]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   02 May 2017, 22:59
31
Kudos
12
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
dgr8sandeep wrote:
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.


Responding to a pm:

Premises:
A fish pass is made on the new dam to allow fish to swim upriver to spawn.
Before the dam, several 1000 fish swam upriver every day.
Now only 300 do per day.

Conclusion: Fish pass is defective.

We have to weaken the argument. So we have to think about why fewer fish may be swimming upstream though the fish pass may not be defective.

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
Irrelevant. What happens to them after the migrate, we don't care. We want to know why they are not migrating.

(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
This strengthens that our fish pass is defective! At other places, the decrease is less. We are seeing a huge decrease.

(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
This provides us a reason why fewer fish are swimming upriver. Perhaps because there are fewer fish now. The construction introduced toxic substances in the river which should have killed many fish. Hence, the fish pass may not be faulty. The problem may be that we have fewer fish now.
Correct.

(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
The population has been declining slightly over many years. It doesn't explain the huge decrease in the number of fish swimming upriver.

(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.
The dam is aiding the fish by providing enough water for them to swim upstream. So the fewer fish swimming upstream would not be expected. Hence defective fish pass could actually be the reason.

Answer (C)
User avatar
L
abhimahna
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Posts: 3600
Own Kudos [?]: 5425 [22]
Given Kudos: 346
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   20 Aug 2016, 07:55
21
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
abrakadabra21 wrote:
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.


Before fish pass = 1000 fish passes through the dam
After fish pass = 300 fish passes through the dam
the fish pass is defective. Assumption here is :-

1> same fish population before and after the dam building.
2> Some other place fish have found

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
If fish have migrated and don't return back, although fish population in cliff river has decreased but assumption here is now river has only 300 fish. so this time its only 300 fish that are migrating.

(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream. : It doesn't mean that this fish pass can not be defective.


(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.


(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.

(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream:- strengthen the argument by saying that migratory fish is getting more helped by flow of dam water.

Confused bet A,C,D


Conclusion : The fish pass is defective. (X)

Premise : Fishes migrating through the pass has reduced. (Y)

We have X causes Y.

Lets break it. :-D

Option (A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again. : Is this a change after the pass or was it happening before also? If before, then it implies it has nothing to do with the conclusion and if after, it implies conclusion is strengthened. Hence , Incorrect.

Option (C) : The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream. -- Alternate cause for the decrease in number. Hence, weakens the conclusion.

Option (D) : Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years. -- Irrelevant. If it is happening then why did the journey actually reduced after the construction itself. It should have followed the same trend.

Note : We need to find something that explains what happens after construction that made the journey reduction.

Hence, C is the best option with an alternate cause.
General Discussion
User avatar
B
herbgatherer
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2016
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 40 [15]
Given Kudos: 24
Location: United States
WE:Project Management (Aerospace and Defense)
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   04 Feb 2017, 20:31
15
Kudos
Not a very convincing question & answer, I'd say. We are not supposed to bring in our understanding of how the world works, when we solve these questions. How do we know that potentially toxic sediments are harmful for the fish?
User avatar
dgr8sandeep
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jan 2013
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 279 [6]
Given Kudos: 86
Schools: Fisher '17 (II) Smith '18 (A) Jones '18 (WL)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   03 Sep 2015, 08:22
3
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Hi drashi,
A weakener just needs to create a doubt in the conclusion. Toxic water may not have killed the fish. But there's a possibility that it could have. In that case, the option weakens the given conclusion.

The author's conclusion is that the fish pass is defective. The basis for this conclusion is that in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey whereas before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season.

Possible weakeners for the conclusion:

300 per day doesn't necessarily mean that the fish pass is defective. It could mean:

1) The fish population has gone down.
2) Fish have found a different place other than upstream to go to.

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
-> This is outside the scope of the conclusion. We arent interested in fish that have already migrated upstream.

(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
-> We arent interested in what's happening on other rivers in the region.

(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
-> This is a possible weakener. Toxic river sediments may have brought down the fish population. This is also in accordance with our prethinking.

(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
-> This is rather a strengthener. Slight decrease in pouplation doesnt help us to rule out the decrease in population aspect. According to this statement there was no reason why the fish didnt go upstream. Fish pass could thus have been the reason.

(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.
-> This again rules out the possibility that sufficient water wasnt available to go upstream. This is a strenghthner.

Hence, C is the answer.

Hope this helps.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [5]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   23 Oct 2018, 02:34
4
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
sriramsundaram91 wrote:
I guess my brain is demented. Can anyone help this demented brain understand why option A to be wrong?
I have read the experts reply. I am still not able to digest why A is wrong? Fish that have migrated upstream breeding grounds don't return the chiff river again.
If there were several thousand fishes and if they had already migrated(they would not want to go downstream for some reason). Only a few would have been left. These few would try to migrate using the fish pass thus attributing to the fewer fish that use the fish pass.


Every year, during spawning season, several 1000s of fish swim upriver to breeding grounds.
This happens during every spawning season. If the fish that have migrated do not come back, they do not come back every season. But still 1000s of fish swim upriver every day in every spawning season.

But in this spawning season (the first one after the dam got constructed), only 300 fish are swimming upriver. So either there is a problem with the fish pass or there are fewer fish or something else. Certainly, the new dam has had some impact this season.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [4]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   10 Sep 2017, 21:50
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
rippen3 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
dgr8sandeep wrote:
(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
Irrelevant. What happens to them after the migrate, we don't care. We want to know why they are not migrating.

(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
This strengthens that our fish pass is defective! At other places, the decrease is less. We are seeing a huge decrease.

(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
This provides us a reason why fewer fish are swimming upriver. Perhaps because there are fewer fish now. The construction introduced toxic substances in the river which should have killed many fish. Hence, the fish pass may not be faulty. The problem may be that we have fewer fish now.
Correct.

(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
The population has been declining slightly over many years. It doesn't explain the huge decrease in the number of fish swimming upriver.

(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.
The dam is aiding the fish by providing enough water for them to swim upstream. So the fewer fish swimming upstream would not be expected. Hence defective fish pass could actually be the reason.

Answer (C)


Thank you for your illustrations. I chose A because, when it says these fish are not returning, this offers an explanation that the population of the downstream only decreases, thus making a possibility why only 300 fish made it through the gate(300 fish may be a good level after this population decrease). Is there anything not appropriate with this logic?


The argument tells us that there is a season in which fish migrate upstream. In every migration season, 1000 fish were migrating upstream every day. In the first season after the construction of the dam, only 300 fish migrated every day.

Option (A) uses simple present to tell us a fact: Once the fish migrate, they don't come back down.
This was true in every season before the dam was made. Still 1000 fish were migrating every season. Only this season 300 fish are migrating. So option (A) doesn't explain why the fish pass may be ok.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [3]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   20 Oct 2018, 18:17
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
NAvinash wrote:
VeritasKarishma, GMATNinja

I understand this is old OG question and much discussed already. I have opted for choice C but I have question on option A and C. In option A , it says migrated fishes are not returned, this does give a reason why upstream fish count is reduced. Option C says toxic stuff but it does not mean always that it has killed many fishes reducing the fish count in general. In presence of these 2 observations I think option A make more sense.

Appreciate your views and response. Thanks - N Avinash.

The conclusion of this argument (the fish pass is defective) is concerned with fish that are migrating to breeding grounds upstream.

Quote:
(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.

Choice (A) has nothing to do with fish that are migrating to breeding grounds upstream.

This choice describes fish that have already migrated to the upstream breeding grounds. These fish are irrelevant to the argument we are asked to evaluate and weaken. That's why we eliminate (A). I hope this clears the waters!
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [3]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   01 Jan 2019, 06:47
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
rish2708 wrote:
Thanks GMATNinja and VeritasKarishma for the wonderful explanations. It helped me rule out E to an extent.

I have made up a pictorial visualisation for this question, to understand it properly.
If possible, could you please assess the validity of the understanding as attached :)

My small query is:

There are two scenarios:

Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season

But in the first season after the project’s completion, only 300 per day made the journey.

Here we have FIRST SEASON and SPAWNING SEASON. Are they both same? How?


Yes, we are talking about only one season and that is the spawning season. The first season after the dam opens means first spawning season.
User avatar
L
BillyZ
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1174
Own Kudos [?]: 20705 [2]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   02 May 2017, 16:52
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
dgr8sandeep wrote:
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.


GMATNinja DmitryFarber GMATNinjaTwo

What is the better approach to solve this question?

A fish pass was designed to allow fish to migrate upstream past the dam to their breeding grounds. The number of migrating fish fell from 1000++/day before the dam was built to 300/day in the first season after it was built, indicating - according to the argument - that the fish pass is defective.

We made this fish dam, The next year, very few fish appeared. So there must be something wrong with the fish pass. To weaken that, we want to say, no. There is SOME OTHER REASON there are very few fish this year.

Why (E) will NOT actually weaken the argument? It still allow fish to migrate upstream.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [2]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   28 Mar 2018, 19:57
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry

I am afraid I need you help

To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.

I picked up E, because,
in the prompt, it states thousands fish swam a per day during spawning season, but in the first season only 300 per day swam, the decreased number is between different seasons.
While choice E states that dam release sufficient water in spawning season, hmmm, E points out a reason, sufficient water from dam, that thousands fish swam, I can get the reason that no sufficient water in the first season after building dam, leading few fish swam,
in other words, it eliminates the factor -- fish pass defective,

Please point out my fault.

Thanks in advance

Have a nice day

>_~



(E) certainly eliminates a problem with the dam, not with the fish pass. In other words, if the dam did NOT release sufficient water, then we would see a decrease in fish migrating upstream EVEN IF the fish pass is totally fine. So (E) eliminates an alternative explanation (problem with the dam itself). If anything, this supports the notion that there might be a problem with the fish pass.

(C), on the other hand, gives a reason why the fish population would have been reduced. This population decrease could explain the decrease in the number that swam upstream. By providing an alternate explanation, (C) weakens the argument.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [2]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   13 Dec 2018, 05:46
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
amansharma2988 wrote:
I used Pre-thinking technique, Now the issue is that the first thought I had was that there might have been a population decline because once the migration was done the fish never came back to their originating position. In such a scenario why option A is wrong?


Note the tone of the argument:

Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey.

During spawning season, several 1000 fish used to swim upriver as a habitual thing. It used to happen in every spawning season. So this was not causing decrease in population. The change happened only after the project's completion.
avatar
Guddietvuser1234
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2015
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   09 Jul 2016, 21:38
1
Kudos
dgr8sandeep wrote:
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.



Got it correct "C" Coz if the dam poured in toxic into downstream fish may have died so less fish made the journey not because of defective fish pass.
User avatar
G
rish2708
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 212 [1]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   26 Dec 2018, 07:00
1
Kudos
Thanks GMATNinja and VeritasKarishma for the wonderful explanations. It helped me rule out E to an extent.

I have made up a pictorial visualisation for this question, to understand it properly.
If possible, could you please assess the validity of the understanding as attached :)

My small query is:

There are two scenarios:

Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season

But in the first season after the project’s completion, only 300 per day made the journey.

Here we have FIRST SEASON and SPAWNING SEASON. Are they both same? How?
Attachments

File comment: Pictorial representation of the explanation.
OG_VR_Fish.PNG
OG_VR_Fish.PNG [ 273.32 KiB | Viewed 4503 times ]

User avatar
G
VeritasPrepBrian
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 416
Own Kudos [?]: 2945 [1]
Given Kudos: 63
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   04 Nov 2019, 11:33
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
ballest127 wrote:
Hi Experts,

I have doubt on the meaning " have been declining slightly over the last 20 years"
I understand that the interpretation of the phrase would be:
" Populations have been declining slightly every year for the last 20 years: that is, let's say the declining rate were 1% each year -- or it would be 2% ,3%,4% which are quite subjective but can impact the argument-- , the total declining rate would amount to about 20%,
which is quite large.

So, I think D could be the answer.

Please explain.

Thank you.


Good question - what's tricky with your hypothetical though is that we already know that the decline is much greater than 20%. The stimulus tells us that before the dam there were several thousand of fish that passed through that part of the river each day, and now we're down to 300. So it's reasonable to say that we're looking at a 90+% decrease ("several thousand" has to be at least 3,000 and probably more), so "declined slightly" just can't be the explanation there.
User avatar
D
AnthonyRitz
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Posts: 237
Own Kudos [?]: 392 [1]
Given Kudos: 165
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   05 Nov 2019, 13:10
1
Bookmarks
VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
ballest127 wrote:
Hi Experts,

I have doubt on the meaning " have been declining slightly over the last 20 years"
I understand that the interpretation of the phrase would be:
" Populations have been declining slightly every year for the last 20 years: that is, let's say the declining rate were 1% each year -- or it would be 2% ,3%,4% which are quite subjective but can impact the argument-- , the total declining rate would amount to about 20%,
which is quite large.

So, I think D could be the answer.

Please explain.

Thank you.


Good question - what's tricky with your hypothetical though is that we already know that the decline is much greater than 20%. The stimulus tells us that before the dam there were several thousand of fish that passed through that part of the river each day, and now we're down to 300. So it's reasonable to say that we're looking at a 90+% decrease ("several thousand" has to be at least 3,000 and probably more), so "declined slightly" just can't be the explanation there.


I agree with Brian's comment.

But beyond that, note that the timeline here is a little funky for D. The passage says "before the construction of the dam and fish pass" but D says "over the last 20 years." Since we have no reason to believe that the dam took 20+ years to complete -- and we cannot simply assume that it did -- the story of the drop-off would need to be even more abrupt (and thus even less explainable through "declining slightly" over a 20-year span).

Oh, and I don't really buy that "declining slightly over the last 20 years" could mean "declining slightly each year, so that over the 20-year span it adds up to a really substantial, not slight, decline." That seems like it's just twisting the language way too hard.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [1]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   21 Jun 2020, 19:01
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AashishGautam wrote:
I chose D, the reason being that since there has been a decline the population should decrease.

OG mentions that it doesn't explain the sudden decrease.

However, in my view, is there a sudden decrease at all?

300/day * 5 month season again runs in several thousands.

Can someone explain this!

Posted from my mobile device

The passage tells us that before the dam was in place, "several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season."

In the first season after the dam was completed, "only 300 per day made the journey."

If you take into account that several thousand fish each day dwindled to 300 each day, then yes, there is a sudden decrease in fish making the journey upstream.

I hope that helps!
avatar
L
AndrewN
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6856 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   02 Feb 2021, 08:37
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
zoezhuyan wrote:
dear experts, DavidTutorexamPAL

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, VeritasKarishma, AnthonyRitz, CJAnish, MartyTargetTestPrep, AndrewN,VeritasPrepBrian
[/url],fiftyoneverbal
I was confused with B,
both other dams with passes had little decreases while Chiff River dam also with pass had significant decrease, that means both other rivers and Chiff River have possess, but have different decreases. so passes are not the reason led to decrease.

most of the posts say B strengthen, while I thought it is a weakness. OA is C, so I must miss something, but I have no idea, genuinely need you help.

thanks in advance

Hello, zoezhuyan. Be careful in CR questions such as this one to stick to exactly what the argument says. This argument is simple: the fish pass is defective. Why might that be argued? The passage simply tells us that the number of fish per day that swam upriver before the dam/fish pass project was completed versus after has decreased from several thousand to 300. To weaken this argument, we need to look for information that allows for the possibility that this particular fish pass is not defective.

If, as choice (B) states, similar projects on other regional rivers have not led to significant decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream, then there may, in fact, be something problematic with this particular dam and/or fish pass. So, while we cannot eliminate the possibility that the dam is the problem rather than the fish pass, (B) leaves us wondering. It is worth noting that the article the in front of fish pass in the argument might have thrown you off. That is, we are not interested in whether the fish pass is defective in general, but in whether the fish pass on the Chiff River is defective. We cannot look to fish passes on other regional rivers to rule out the possibility that the one in discussion is faulty.

Meanwhile, choice (C) provides an alternative explanation, one that can logically help reconcile the numbers. If toxic river sediments... were carried downstream and the fish swim upstream, then perhaps these fish could not handle the toxins, and their numbers diminished without respect to the fish pass. We still do not know for sure whether the fish pass is defective, but we have a much more compelling reason to doubt that such a contention is necessarily accurate.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me. (I enjoyed the question.)

- Andrew
avatar
L
AndrewN
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6856 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   05 Feb 2021, 09:02
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Mayank221133 wrote:
Just one thing here. How could one possibly conclude that these toxic substance were life threatening to fish. It could have been toxic for humans but not for fish. Even though I selected C because its more relevant than other option but still it draws no clear infrence and opens itself to some redundancy. To my belief this isnt an absolute weakner.

I agree, Mayank2211333, but you have to keep an eye on the question itself:

Quote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

You said yourself that (C) "is more relevant," and if it makes the strongest case of the answers presented, you ought to choose it, plain and simple. In most CR questions, your goal is to find the most reasonable answer of the five, not one that presents an airtight case, and the closer you follow the linear logic of the passage—the less you bring in through outside association—the better off you will find yourself. (I used to overthink CR questions and find the answers somewhat arbitrary, but then I taught myself to follow the rules of GMAT™ logic.)

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
User avatar
P
MartyMurray
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 819
Own Kudos [?]: 1404 [1]
Given Kudos: 74
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink] New post   05 Oct 2023, 16:22
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
sk05 wrote:
Why is A incorrect? It can so happen that because the fish that have migrated don't return, there are fewer fish in the river now.

Notice that the passage says the following:

    Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey.

We see that the passage is saying that, in general, "during spawning season," several thousand fish swam upriver each day and that, during the first spawning season after the project's completion, only 300 fish swam upriver each day.

So, the argument is supported by a comparison between what occurred in previous entire seasons and what occurred during the entire first season after the project's completion.

Presumably, what (A) says, "Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again," applies to both the previous seasons and the first season after the project's completion. So, (A) does not affect the support for the conclusion provided by the comparison between what occurred during the previous seasons and what occurred the first season after the project's completion.

Quote:
Isn't assuming that wish died because of toxic substances going too far? Nothing is mentioned that fish can die because of that.

In GMAT Critical Reasoning, we can apply common knowledge in our analysis of answer choices.

So, since it's common knowledge that toxic substances could cause fish to avoid a river, have trouble swimming upriver, or die, we can take what choice (C) says as indicating that there may be an alternative reason for the decrease in the number of fish that swam upstream and that, therefore, the argument's conclusion that the fish pass is defective may not be correct.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the rout [#permalink]
05 Oct 2023, 16:22
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions