Recently ApexCo has begun drilling off the coast of Mycondia. In this

Question

Recently ApexCo has begun drilling off the coast of Mycondia. In this time, the number of animals that end up on the beach, coated in oil and other industrial by-products, has increased dramatically. Nonetheless, no Peterson’s loggerhead turtles, a tortoise common in the waters off the coast of Mycondia, have washed upon shore. ApexCo’s public relations claim that while some of the by-products are clearly harmful to aquatic life, the lack of Peterson’s loggerhead turtles that are washed ashore suggest that not all the aquatic life there is adversely affected.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument employed by ApexCo’s public relations firm?

(A) The Peterson’s loggerhead turtle has never been seen washed upon the shores of Mycondia.

(B) Sea otters are the most common beached animals, followed by dolphins.

(C) Many of the animals that are beached are saved by environmental groups, which later release them into water not affected by ApexCo drilling.

(D) There have been no reports of beached cephalopods, which are common in the waters of the coast of Mycondia.

(E) ApexCo has also drilled off the coast of Sylvania, which witnessed many of its local aquatic life washing ashore.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

siddhantvarma · Answer

Argument:
- ApexCo has recently started drilling off the coast of Mycondia.
- Since drilling began, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of animals washing up on the beach, coated in oil and industrial by-products.

Observation by ApexCo:
- No Peterson’s loggerhead turtles have washed ashore.

Conclusion:
- Since no Peterson’s loggerhead turtles have appeared on the beach,  not all  aquatic life there is adversely affected by the drilling. If turtles haven’t shown up coated in oil,  they must be unharmed  => harm isn’t universal.

Pre-thinking: ApexCo’s reasoning assumes that if a species harmed by the drilling, it would necessarily show up beached (and presumably coated in oil). However, there could be other reasons why the turtles are not seen on the beach even if they are harmed. For instance:

- Perhaps this species rarely or never washes ashore, harmed or otherwise. 
- They could be dying in open water. 
- They might migrate far away from the drilling region.

(A) “The Peterson’s loggerhead turtle has never been seen washed upon the shores of Mycondia.”
This choice directly hits the flaw: if this species is never found on Mycondia’s beaches (regardless of oil drilling), the fact that they still haven’t shown up now does not prove they’re unharmed => keep

(B) “Sea otters are the most common beached animals, followed by dolphins.”
It says nothing about why loggerhead turtles haven’t shown up, nor does it address whether they could be harmed out at sea => Eliminate

(C) “Many of the animals that are beached are saved by environmental groups, which later release them into water not affected by ApexCo drilling.”
This focuses on rescue efforts for animals that do wash ashore => It doesn’t explain why the loggerhead turtles don’t show up => Eliminate

(D) “There have been no reports of beached cephalopods, which are common in the waters of the coast of Mycondia.”
Cephalopods might have different behaviour, so the conclusion about turtles is less directly attacked here. => Eliminate.

(E) “ApexCo has also drilled off the coast of Sylvania, which witnessed many of its local aquatic life washing ashore.”
Again, this does not specifically address loggerhead turtles near Mycondia => Eliminate.

Thus, (A) most directly casts doubt on ApexCo’s conclusion and is therefore the correct answer.

SKaur3 · Answer

Premise -> No Peterson’s loggerhead turtles were beached due to ApexCo's drilling, they are not harmed.
Conclusion -> Not all aquatic life is adversely affected.

To weaken, we must develop something that these turtles never come offshore, or recent rescue operations moved all such turtles, etc.

This says something which is in line with that, let's keep it.

We are not concerned about other beach animals, specifically how common they are.

This might convey most of Peterson loggerhead turtles were earlier rescued and released to water by environmental group, so let's keep it.
 
We are not concerned about other aquatic animals.
 
Again, we are not concerned about the cost of Sylvania.

So among A and C, she is quite a weak weakener, as we can assume that turtles might have been rescued, but it is not clearly specified.

So I will go with A, that specifically talks about Peterson’s loggerhead turtle and tells that they were never washed offshore.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The credited answer is (A). Some aquatic animals, when they die, wash up on shore. Those numbers have been increasing since the drilling began. If the turtle have never washed up, this means that, when turtles die, something else happens to them. We don't know what, but the point is, looking at washed up animals does not indicate how many turtles have died and what the effect of the drilling may be. This casts doubt on the argument of the ApexCo's public relation firm, because the only ray of hope they offered was: no turtles are dying, and choice (A) indicates this is a problematic claim.

We already know other animals are adversely affected and washing up. The specific argument here is about whether the turtles are adversely affected, and choice (B) has no implications for that, so it is incorrect.

It's nifty that many of the beached animals are saved --- those are the animals that are adversely affected. This doesn't address the question: are there aquatic animals such as turtles that are not adversely affected? Choice (C) does not address that claim, so it is incorrect.

Choice (D) is very fancy sounding with that scientific word, cephalopods. Whatever those are, if they are in the water and are not washing it, then it may be this is another kind of animal that is not adversely affected. If anything, this might strengthen the argument of the ApexCo's public relation firm, but we want a weakener, so this is incorrect. (BTW, cephalopods include octopuses and squid.)

Choice (E) makes an argument by analogy, which is suggestive. If drilling off the coast of Sylvania has adversely influences aquatic animals there, then it makes sense that drilling off the coast of Mycondia would also have adversely influence on aquatic animals --- in fact, we already know this much is the case. Choice (E) doesn't go this far, but even if it said specifically that Peterson's loggerhead turtles were adversely affected by the drilling off Sylvania, by itself that wouldn't prove that the drilling off Mycondia was also adversely affecting them. An argument by analogy can only suggest, not prove that something is the case. Therefore, choice (E)is not a strong weakener.

Recently ApexCo has begun drilling off the coast of Mycondia. In this

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

Recently ApexCo has begun drilling off the coast of Mycondia. In this

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