In a study of the effect of pollution from underwater oil rigs on the

Question

In a study of the effect of pollution from underwater oil rigs on the fish population in the rigs' vicinity, researchers compared fish caught in areas near oil rigs with those caught in areas more than a hundred miles away from any oil rig. Finding no differences in the health of the fish in the two catches, the researchers concluded that pollution from oil rigs poses no serious health hazard to the fish population in the rigs' vicinity.

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

A. Only a radius of ten miles around oil rigs was considered for the study

B. The fish ecosystems in the two areas sampled were not similar; one area was cold and overcast while the other was hot and sunny.

C. Pollution from oil rigs affects the mating, and therefore, egg-laying behaviour of fish

D. Only a small number of oil rigs are present underwater.

E. The research did not include the long-term of pollution on plants on which the fish survive.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

sumit99kr · Answer

MOST seriously weakens- a solid concrete reason that can weaken with 100% conviction.

Conclusion- pollution from oil rigs poses no serious health hazard to the fish population in the rigs' vicinity.

Key words- health hazard and population.

Answer option should contain a health hazard from pollution that affects the fish population.

Answer option C talks about health hazard- mating & egg laying behaviour (which affects population).

Hence I would go with option C.

Posted from my mobile device

Bunuel · Answer

Experts' Global Video Explanation:

N5JGuA_Pl-I

sony1000 · Answer

But c does not say it negatively affects the mating of fish....

birkin1990 · Answer

In a study of the   effect of pollution from underwater oil rigs on the fish population   in the rigs' vicinity, researchers compared fish caught in areas near oil rigs with those caught in areas more than a hundred miles away from any oil rig. Finding no differences in the health of the fish in the two catches, the researchers concluded that pollution from oil rigs poses no serious health hazard to the fish population in the rigs' vicinity.

I thought the non similar samples answer would be more fitting,
But the question specifically mention effect on fish population ONLY, either good or bad isnt mentioned too.

Choice C is the only option that tackles this directly.

Please give me kudos, i need more kudos.

Gemmie · Answer

A. Only a radius of ten miles around oil rigs was considered for the study. 
 Reasoning:  If the study only considered a small radius around the oil rigs (ten miles), it might have missed areas where pollution effects are more concentrated. This could mean that the study did not fully capture the potential impact of pollution, leading to a misleading conclusion.
 Impact:  This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the study’s scope was too limited, potentially overlooking the true effects of pollution.

B. The fish ecosystems in the two areas sampled were not similar; one area was cold and overcast while the other was hot and sunny. 
 Reasoning:  If the ecosystems in the two areas were different, the comparison might not be valid because factors unrelated to pollution (e.g., temperature, sunlight) could have affected the health of the fish.
 Impact:  This option could weaken the conclusion by pointing out that the comparison might be flawed due to differences in environmental conditions. However, it doesn't directly address the potential effects of pollution from the oil rigs.

C. Pollution from oil rigs affects the mating, and therefore, egg-laying behaviour of fish.  
 Reasoning:  If pollution affects the mating and egg-laying behavior of fish, the study's focus on the health of the caught fish might miss important long-term effects on the population. For instance, if fewer eggs are laid, the overall fish population could decline over time, even if the health of individual fish appears unaffected in the short term.
 Impact:  This option weakens the conclusion by introducing a potential adverse effect of pollution that the study did not consider, suggesting that the conclusion might be incomplete or incorrect.

D. Only a small number of oil rigs are present underwater. 
 Reasoning:  If only a small number of oil rigs exist, the study might be less representative of the overall impact of oil rig pollution. However, this doesn’t directly challenge the researchers' findings regarding the health of the fish.
 Impact:  This option is less effective in weakening the argument because it doesn’t address the core issue of whether pollution from the oil rigs is harmful to the fish.

E. The research did not include the long-term effect of pollution on plants on which the fish survive. 
 Reasoning:  If the study didn’t consider the long-term effects of pollution on the plants that fish rely on for survival, it might have overlooked an indirect but serious consequence of pollution. If the plants are affected, the fish population could be impacted over time, even if the fish currently appear healthy.
 Impact:  This option could weaken the argument by suggesting that the study failed to consider important indirect effects of pollution, which could lead to a decline in the fish population.

vijaysingh26 · Answer

"concluded that pollution from oil rigs poses no serious health hazard to the fish population in the rigs' vicinity." 
 c Pollution from oil rigs affects the mating, and therefore, egg-laying behaviour of fish. "affects mating is being considered no serious health hazard to fish population". I was looking for reason which may in future lead to fish population reduction that is E.The research did not include the long-term of pollution on plants on which the fish survive. so if the plants gets affected the fish population gets effected. comments please.

In a study of the effect of pollution from underwater oil rigs on the

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

In a study of the effect of pollution from underwater oil rigs on the

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