An ecology magazine regularly publishes articles on tree diseases.

Question

An ecology magazine regularly publishes articles on tree diseases. This year, the number of articles on Ophiostoma ulmi, the fungus that causes Dutch elm disease, is significantly smaller than the number of such articles that appeared last year. Clearly, fewer researchers studied Ophiostoma ulmi this year than did so last year.

Which of the following, if true, weakens the above conclusion?

A. Many researchers publishing articles are currently studying Stegophora ulmeay a fungus that causes elm leaf spot.

B. Since its introduction, Dutch elm disease has killed half of the elm trees in North America.

C. Research on Dutch elm disease that focuses on prevention receives more funding than research that focuses on finding a cure.

D. A new strain of the fungus Rhytisma acerinum infested maple trees at an unprecedented rate this year.

E. All articles go through at least a one-year review process before publication.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

kb26 · Answer

The argument is that the number of articles on Ophiostoma ulmi that appeared this year is less than last year. So, a few researchers studied this fungus this year. So, what could invalidate the correlation between number of articles and number of researchers. Its the timeline given by option E. That the review process is long and we cannot conclude anything on the number of researchers than with the number of articles.

Option A, B and D actually strengthen the argument by providing evidences on why fewer researchers could have studies this fungus.

Option C focuses on prevention vs cure funding which is not relevant to the conclusion.

Option A, B and D actually strengthen the argument by providing evidences on why fewer researchers could have studies this fungus.

Option C focuses on prevention vs cure funding which is not relevant to the conclusion.

vasu1104 · Answer

this year num of articles on OU smaller than last years num. 
 cocnlusion= fewer researchers studied OU this year than last year.

assumption= num of researchers working on problem determines the number of articles published in a given year.

A good to know that but the doesnt give me reason why fewer articles. out. 
 B this is complete waste of choice. out. 
 C this is comparing wrong things. not concerned with prevention and cure of it, out. 
 D good to know but no idea whether researchers focused on that? out. 
 E okay then if it takes at least year to pass articles then all this years articles will come out next year, hence we cant say fewer researchers studied the OU. this attacks the hidden assumption and hence is weakner.

choice E

FluidBook · Answer

The correct answer is E. All articles go through at least a one-year review process before publication. ✅

Why?

The conclusion is:

Fewer researchers studied Ophiostoma ulmi this year because fewer articles were published this year.

The flaw is that articles published this year may represent research conducted last year or earlier, because of the one-year review process.

So even if the number of articles on Ophiostoma ulmi decreased this year, it does not necessarily mean fewer researchers studied it this year. Researchers could actually have studied it more this year, but their research hasn't been published yet.

E directly weakens the link between:

Fewer articles published this year → Fewer researchers studied it this year

dhart · Answer

The reseach work undegoes atleast one year review before publication , so though there were sufficeent reaseach finding last year , tey are still under review. so option C, articles go through at least a one-year review process before publication

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. Incorrect — This tells us what researchers are studying now, but not why fewer O. ulmi articles were published.
B. Incorrect — The historical impact of Dutch elm disease doesn't explain the drop in articles this year.
C. Incorrect — Funding differences don't tell us why the number of published articles fell.
D. Incorrect — Research on another fungus doesn't directly explain the O. ulmi article count.
E. Correct — If articles take at least a year to go through review, this year's articles reflect research from the previous year. So fewer articles published this year doesn't mean fewer researchers studied O. ulmi this year.

harjas2222 · Answer

E. the rest are clearly irrelevant to why there is less research on the fungus this year, the option E clearly gives us and idea and attacks the main conclusion that there was only a few researches on the subject.

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer: E

Argument Breakdown:
- Premise: Number of articles published on Ophiostoma ulmi THIS YEAR is lower than LAST YEAR.
- Conclusion: Fewer researchers studied Ophiostoma ulmi THIS YEAR than last year.

The Flaw:
The argument equates "articles published this year" with "research conducted this year."

Option Evaluation:
(A) Other fungal topics are irrelevant to the absolute count of Ophiostoma ulmi researchers.
(B) Historical impact of the disease has no bearing on this year's research activity.
(C) Sub-allocation of funding (prevention vs. cure) does not address the overall trend.
(D) Out of scope (focuses on maple trees and an unrelated fungus).
 (E) CORRECT. A review process of at least one year creates a publication lag. 
 Articles published this year reflect research from previous years, destroying the claim that fewer researchers are studying the fungus this year.

PaceOven · Answer

To determine which statement weakens the argument, let's break down the logic presented in the passage:

Premise:  The number of articles on  Ophiostoma ulmi  published in the ecology magazine this year is significantly smaller than last year.

Conclusion:  Fewer researchers studied  Ophiostoma ulmi  this year than last year.

Assumption:  Published articles in a given year accurately reflect the amount of research conducted  in that same year.

Now let's analyze options:

A. Many researchers publishing articles are currently studying Stegophora ulmeay... 
 Irrelevant:  Research on a completely different fungus  (Stegophora ulmeay)  does not explain why the number of published articles on  Ophiostoma ulmi  dropped or tell us about current research levels on  Ophiostoma ulmi .

B. Since its introduction, Dutch elm disease has killed half of the elm trees in North America. 
 Irrelevant:  Historical context regarding the severity of the disease does not account for the year-over-year discrepancy in published articles versus research activity.

C. Research on Dutch elm disease that focuses on prevention receives more funding than research that focuses on finding a cure. 
 Irrelevant:  The division of funding between prevention and cure does not explain the connection between publication year and research year.

D. A new strain of the fungus Rhytisma acerinum infested maple trees at an unprecedented rate this year. 
 Irrelevant:  An outbreak affecting maple trees does not directly address the lag or relationship between published articles and active research on  Ophiostoma ulmi.

E. All articles go through at least a one-year review process before publication. 
 Correct:  If articles take at least a year to review before publication, the articles published  this year  reflect research that was conducted  last year or earlier.  Consequently, a decline in published articles  this year  indicates a decrease in research done in previous years, not research conducted  this year.  This directly severs the link between this year's publications and this year's research activity, weakening the author's conclusion.

Correct Answer
E. All articles go through at least a one-year review process before publication.

counterclash1 · Answer

Agreed. And doing a first post as an answer, great job!

An ecology magazine regularly publishes articles on tree diseases.

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­An ecology magazine regularly publishes articles on tree diseases.

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

An ecology magazine regularly publishes articles on tree diseases.