Exterminator: Using poisoned food is the most effective tactic for com

Question

Exterminator : Using poisoned food is the most effective tactic for combating a mouse infestation.The mouse will carry the food back to the nest, causing all of the mice to die, while a trap will kill only the one mouse that falls into it. If all signs of the mice disappear for three consecutive weeks after poisoned food is used, the homeowner can be sure that the poison was successful in eradicating the mice.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the exterminator’s claim that the absence of signs for three weeks means the mice have been eradicated by the poison?

(A) Because mice hide whenever they sense humans, it is very difficult to see or hear mice even when there is an active infestation.
(B) It is more humane to use “live-catch” traps that allow homeowners to release the still- living mice outside.
(C) In the spring, many mice that nest in houses begin foraging for food outside and do not return to the comfort of the house until the fall or winter.
(D) There are several different kinds of poison that could be used, some of which are more effective than others.
(E) It sometimes takes longer than three weeks for all of the mice to ingest and die from the poison.

sudarshan22 · Answer

+1 for   C  .

Weakener :   
What if the mouse does not return back to its nest soon enough to "  cause all of the mice to die  ", that way the plan may fail miserably.

(C) In the spring, many mice that nest in houses begin foraging for food outside and do not return to the comfort of the house until the fall or winter. -->   Correct , matches our pre-thinking

Hence,   C  .

Prateek176 · Answer

broall  ,  VeritasKarishma  ,  gmatexam439

Why is A incorrect?. If mice hide whenever they sense humans and it is very difficult to see or hear mice, why can't it be a weakener?

Carcass · Answer

The stem says

A) talks about only to see or hear the mice of disappearing. We need that all the signs are gone such as food rests, droppings and so forth.

Moreover, in general, mice are always difficult to see or hear. So A) is wrong for these reasons.

Hope now is clear

DiegoBravoTre · Answer

This question is from GRE Practice Problems. The explanation the book has is:

6. (C). The exterminator explains the effects of using poisoned food to combat a mouse infestation: mice will pick up the food an carry it to the nest, where all of the mice will eat the food and die as a result. The exterminator then claims that if X happens, then it will be certain that Y happened first. Specifically, he claims that if all signs of the mice disappear for three consecutive weeks after setting out poisoned food, then the mice all must have died as a result of that poisoned food. The correct answer will weaken this claim, for instance by showing that if X happens, it will not necessarily mean that Y happened; perhaps there is another reason why happens.

(A): this choice is very tempting, but the exterminator argues that "all signs" of the mice "disappear"; this choice mentions only the difficulty of seeing and hearing mice. These do not represent "all signs" of an infestation; mice may leave dropping, chew things up, and so forth. Further, the mice are not harder to see and hear only after poison has been used. They are always hard to see and hear, so this does not provide an alternative explanation as to why signs might diminish or disappear after poison has been used.

(B): this choice may be true, but it does not address the exterminator's claim that if all signs disappear, then the poison must have killed the mice.

(C): CORRECT. This choice offers an alternative explanation for absence of signs of an infestation. If the mice have left the house, then any signs of infestation would also cease because the mice are no longer there. However, the signs will have ceased because the mice left voluntary, not because they have been eradicated by the poison, as claimed by the exterminator.

(D): it is likely true that different poisons have different levels of efficacy, but this argument does not distinguish between types of poison. The claim is simply that the poison must have killed the mice (as opposed to some other explanation for why the signs of the mice would disappear).

(E): The exterminator does not claim that the poison will work within three weeks (or within any time frame at all). He only claims that if the signs disappear over three consecutive weeks, then that means that the poison worked. It might be the case that the signs don't disappear until weeks 3, 4, or 5, but the exterminator's claim would still hold: because the signs have disappeared for three consecutive weeks, the poison worked.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Lakshya

In such problems where we are asked to weaken an unqualified conclusion, it is enough to provide one scenario where the conclusion does not hold. That such a scenario might not always occur does not mean that it is not a valid weakener.

In this stimulus, there is an unqualified conclusion being made.

If all signs of the mice disappear for three consecutive weeks after poisoned food is used, the homeowner can be sure that the poison was successful in eradicating the mice.

This is interpreted to mean that  under all scenarios and circumstances , if there are no signs of mice for three weeks, then the problem has been eradicated. In order to weaken this, it is enough to provide  one  scenario, which may only hold true at some times and not at others, where absence of ice for three weeks does not necessarily mean eradication of the problem. Option (C) does that clearly, and hence is a valid weakener of the conclusion.

Obviously, if it is not spring or summer, then this does not act as a weakener. However, since the conclusion does not state that the absence of mice for three weeks indicates eradication of the problem only in fall or winter, option (C) is a valid weakener.

Hope this helps.

NirupamaIyer · Answer

This is a clear cause effect question
Cause - Effect
Poisoned food (c)- mice eradication (Not present for 3 w) (e)
To weaken this we need to show that something else caused the mice not be in the house for >3 W
Option c clearly tells us that

Elite097 · Answer

CrackverbalGMAT   KarishmaB  why not E?

GMATking94 · Answer

you have to select an answer which clearly undermines the statement. Option C does the job with absolute perfection.

Option E uses "sometimes". Not a solid answer.

Elite097 · Answer

GMATking94  pls elaborate further in detail. What role will it have with sometimes and the other errors associated with that chocie besides sometimes.

Would it be correct if it said 'all the time'?

GMATking94 · Answer

Elite097

If you ask the question what would have been the case if it said "all the time" then there might be other changes in other options. GMAT questions always point towards a specific options based on the logic that is being tested. Please be careful to select the best answer always not the perfect answer. Here E fails clearly when compared to C. Hence, C is the correct choice.

Elite097 · Answer

GMATking94   KarishmaB  why does E fail here and how does the word “sometimes” make E worth eliminating . Pls elaborate both cases of “sometimes”

It might be the case that the signs don't disappear until weeks 3, 4, or 5, then how will the exterminators claim still hold?

Posted from my mobile device

GMATking94 · Answer

Elite097 I would again emphasize you to think on the options. Option E do not provide a concrete reason to doubt the claim. It simply says it might take more than 3 weeks to ingest and die from the poison. Now think what is the main point of the question - If all signs of the mice disappear for three consecutive weeks after poisoned food is used, the homeowner can be sure that the poison was successful in eradicating the mice. Does E helps in any way???

Now what does C says - so, it clearly undermines the fact by stating that the disappearance of the mice is for other reasons and not due to it being eradicated by poison. I hope it helps.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Exterminator: Using poisoned food is the most effective tactic for com

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

Exterminator: Using poisoned food is the most effective tactic for com

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