Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 18:12 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 18:12
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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
705-805 Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
prince00113
User avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2015
Last visit: 23 Jun 2019
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
282
 [10]
Given Kudos: 64
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 70
Kudos: 282
 [10]
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care Updated on: 14 Nov 2025, 11:05
Originally posted by prince00113 on 25 Mar 2018, 10:21.
Last edited by bb on 14 Nov 2025, 11:05, edited 1 time in total.
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (01:49) correct 56% (01:53) wrong based on 381 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care for every individual wild tiger. Animal lovers and conservationists should focus on saving the species as a whole rather than worry about saving every individual. Conservation interventions must therefore be guided by scientific evidence and social practicality, rather than emotion.


Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion ?

A. There are so few tigers left that it would not be difficult or impractical to care for every single one of them
B. When a species is down to just a handful of members, then saving the whole species would entail for caring for each individual as well.
C. It is difficult to get ordinary people interested in conserving endangered species without appealing to their emotions.
D. The reason that animal lovers and conversationalists try to help endangered animals is that they feel emotionally attached to these animals.
E. Many animals parks are dependent on scientific data to focus on park's animals.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
u1983
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 24 Aug 2016
Last visit: 06 Jun 2021
Posts: 710
Own Kudos:
851
Given Kudos: 97
GMAT 1: 540 Q49 V16
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
Posts: 710
Kudos: 851
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care 25 Mar 2018, 10:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
prince00113
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care for every individual wild tiger. Animal lovers and conversationalists should focus on saving the species as a whole rather than worry about saving every individual. Conversation interventions must therefore be guided by scientific evidence and social practicality, rather than emotion.


Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion ?

A. There are so few tigers left that it would not be difficult or impractical to care for every single one of them
B. When a species is down to just a handful of members, then saving the whole species would entail for caring for each individual as well.
C. It is difficult to get ordinary people interested in conserving endangered species without appealing to their emotions.
D. The reason that animal lovers and conversationalists try to help endangered animals is that they feel emotionally attached to these animals.
E. Many animals parks are dependent on scientific data to focus on park's animals.
Show more


D. Correct. The conservationists & animal lovers feels emotionally attached--> they help endangered species.
If they would have acted only by scientific evidence and social practicality , they might not have felt attached and thus would have tried to help the endengered species.
avatar
Makesh89
avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2021
Last visit: 25 Oct 2025
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
7
 [1]
Given Kudos: 320
Location: Kenya
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V33
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V33
Posts: 32
Kudos: 7
 [1]
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care 08 Jun 2021, 12:26
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is one question that needs one to locate the conclusion Inorder to successfully get the question right.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Pratyaksh1907
User avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
2
 [2]
Given Kudos: 15
Posts: 5
Kudos: 2
 [2]
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care 14 Nov 2025, 08:43
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Please correct the spelling of conservationist in the argument. It might create confusion and cost extra time to solve. Thank you
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 42,383
Own Kudos:
82,109
 [2]
Given Kudos: 24,103
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 42,383
Kudos: 82,109
 [2]
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care 14 Nov 2025, 08:46
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pratyaksh1907
Please correct the spelling of conservationist in the argument. It might create confusion and cost extra time to solve. Thank you
Show more

Done. Thx. 🙏
It was an annoying and somewhat funny typo
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 42,383
Own Kudos:
82,109
 [1]
Given Kudos: 24,103
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 42,383
Kudos: 82,109
 [1]
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care 14 Nov 2025, 11:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nitish2007
why not b??
Show more

B) When a species is down to just a handful of members, then saving the whole species would entail for caring for each individual as well.

The reason OA is not B is 2 fold:

1. We have to weaken the conclusion which happens to be the last sentence: Conservation interventions must therefore be guided by scientific evidence and social practicality, rather than emotion. Therefore sort of gives it away and B does not deal with this sentence.

2. Even if we argue about the overall argument, the details are a bit longer. Weakening something entails breaking the argument (strong weaken) or casting doubt (subtle weaken).
In this case, it is telling us that in some case, an edge case, where there are just a few individual left, we would be caring for them but that's a by product of the situation, meaning you will be forced to care for them individually just because there are so few, not because that's the right thing to do but just out of necessity, so the result may be the same but for the wrong reason.

As the result, we did not weaken the argument. The argument still stands and we did not weaken the conclusion either.

P.S. In absence of other weakeners, this could pass up as a subtle weakener, very subtle but not in this case where D is stronger and D actually addresses the conclusion.
User avatar
Pratyaksh1907
User avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 15
Posts: 5
Kudos: 2
Science and practical experience clearly show that we cannot care 14 Nov 2025, 11:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
B. When a species is down to just a handful of members, then saving the whole species would entail for caring for each individual as well.
nitish2007
why not b??
Show more
From the context of the argument we can figure out that tiger species is endangered, otherwise why it required saving in the first place?

Now, from B, we know that the species is down to a handful of members. [In context of option B, not in context of the argument]

Focus on this, HANDFUL ≠ ENDANGERED.
10, 100, 1000 or 3000 can be considered as endangered and same goes for Handful, but the thing is that we don't know the previous numbers of Tigers before being endangered. Hence, we should not make any assumptions on # of handful or # of endangered tigers.
Therefore, we can eliminate B.
This might not be the OE's logic, but this is how I eliminated B.
Hope it helps...:)
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts