12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 3: By 1970, rampant

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

There is a rampant whaling going on in the high seas, by 1970 - the population of humpback whales was reduced to 10% of its original size. That’s a drastic decline.

If we assume the earlier population to be 100, then the population of humpback whales became 10. In response to this horrendous act, a worldwide moratorium was enacted. Moratorium means a suspension of an ongoing activity. So, ongoing rampant whaling was suspended.

Fast forwarding the time, we reach 2009. The outcome of the moratorium was fruitful, as the population has recovered. Due to which, the moratorium was eased in few of the earlier restricted areas. During 2010- the visibility of humpback whales in open seas increased when compared to visibility of humpback whales in 2000s.

Visibility of humpback whale (2010) > Visibility of humpback Whale’s (2000).

So, the author concludes DESPITE whatever whaling has happened (this is shocking, even in the worst case if the whaling is excessively rampant), the humpback whale population MUST HAVE INCREASED.

We can infer an important aspect that, the population increase has been enormously high that the whaling carried out was not sufficient enough to reduce the population in 2010.

We need to find a weakener.

A) Throughout the 2010s, the sale of products derived from humpback was more strictly regulated than whaling was.

If the sale of products derived from whaling was strictly regulated, this means the products derived from humpback was restricted. That doesn’t mean the whaling has stopped completely. May be the whaling has happened, while the products are preserved for later sales. Or the chance of black market thriving because of the restriction cannot be denied altogether. Hence, not a weakening statement.

B) The whaling restriction applied to both private and government whalers.

Any restriction by international organisations trickles down to the national levels, and laws apply equally (at least in paper) to all players - both government and private. This is a factual statement. Hence, cannot be used as a weakener.

C) Humpback whale sightings in coastal regions increased in number, greatly , during the 2010s.

This might be the cause of moratorium, or the whales have been carried by the underwater jet streams to the coastal regions. There is an equal chance of Humpback whales came to coastal regions in search of food. Either way, this option strengthens the conclusion.

D) There is significantly greater number of ships in the sea in the 2010s than in the 2000s.

If the number of ships at the sea, was greater in 2010s compared to 2000s. Then, there is a greater chance that whaling might have increased. Despite the whaling, the population is on the growing trend.

There is another interpretation that, greater number of ships will lead to greater reporting of whales in the seas.

Does large reporting means , equally greater number of whales being spotted. Is there a chance that all ships , regularly spot a few group of whales , and report them to lead a false conclusion of numbers increased. Hence, a weakening statement.

E) Most humpback whale sightings on the open sea in the 2010s occured in the regions where there were few ships.

Things which are obvious doesn’t need an explanation. If more humpback whales are sighted in open seas, where there are few ships. Then, it’s a clear indication that humpback whales are increasing. Hence, Wrong.

Option D

jai169

Joined: 25 May 2024

Last visit: 22 Mar 2026

Posts: 10

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 10

Kudos: 7

18 Dec 2025, 00:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

rampant whaling reduced the size by 10% remaining 90%
moratarium enacted

by 2009 population largely recovered

restrictions were loosen in some areas

in 2010 reports of ship encountering of humpback wales in open was increased

conclusion despite whaling took place the humback whale population must increased considerably during 2010

assumptions- more whales were encountered not because there was more ships in sea to see the whales , but becuase whales population was increased

anything that weakens the assumption are our best choice

D is directly opposite to our assumption so thats a correct choice.

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

adityamntr

Joined: 15 Jul 2023

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 111

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27

Posts: 111

Kudos: 81

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 00:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

A) this would imply, whale population decreased, which is not affecting the arguement
b)not relevant to the arguement, could be any type of whalers
c) this does not affect arguement, just states the fact that sightings increaesed
d) this would weaken the arguement, by providing an alternative theory why more sightings were there. merely because there were more ship to observe.
e) this would strenghten the arguement, even after low number of ships, more sightings were there

answer is D

prepapr

Joined: 06 Jan 2025

Last visit: 24 Apr 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q85 V80 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 92

Kudos: 82

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 01:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

Context: By 1970, whale population decreased to 10% of original size. Restrictions were imposed on whaling. By 2009, population was recovered, restrictions were relaxed in some areas.
Premise: During 2010s, ships encountering whales increased compared to 2000s.
Conclusion: Despite whatever whaling took place, the whale population increased considerably in the 2010s
Logical gap: The increase in sightings is directly connected to increased whale population.

Evaluating answer choices
A) We are not concerned with the products derived from these whales. Even though this suggests that the products sales were low, this does not explain increased sightings of whales in 2010s
B) The argument has not differentiated between government and private whalers. Hence this is out of scope
C) This just reinstates whatever is already said in the argument. This does not explain the problem nor does it weaken it
D) This is a serious weakener. If greater number of ships are in the sea, there are obviously increased chance of sightings without an actual increase in whale size. This explains the sightings and weaken the conclusion that the population has increased.
E) This is a strengthener. If this is true, it negates an explanation that the sightings were due to more ships in the sea. Also, this might actually suggest increased whale population

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

jkkamau

Joined: 25 May 2020

Last visit: 24 Apr 2026

Posts: 226

Own Kudos:

190

[1]

Given Kudos: 142

Location: Kenya

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

Posts: 226

Kudos: 190

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 02:40

Kudos

Bookmarks

A This does not weaken the argument in any way it just offers additional information that may not be so useful
B It is irrelevant to the argument again we are talking about the open seas
C This simply restates the argument
D Correct. Weakens the argument by giving an alternative explanation to increased whale sitings
E This actually supports the argument instead of weakening it
Ans D

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

Lizaza

Joined: 16 Jan 2021

Last visit: 29 Mar 2026

Posts: 240

Own Kudos:

282

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40 Verified score

Posts: 240

Kudos: 282

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 02:44

Kudos

Bookmarks

We learn that since 1970s, there was a moratorium on killing whales => by 2000 their population restored, moratorium eased => by 2010 there were many more sightings.
The conclusion states that despite the possibility of hunting, there must have become even more whales eventually. Therefore, in order to weaken this, we can easily pinpoint some other reason for the increase in whale sightings, which would not necessarily equal (sadly) and growth in their population.

A) Even if sales weren't that lucrative, there was still possibility to trade, as well as to hunt, so it's not very helpful.

B) This is out of scope, since there's no mention of who was the main hunter.

C) This narrows down where exactly the sightings happened, and while a marine biologist might've made an assumption from this (like, starvation of animals), we can't do that, so it's irrelevant.

D) Looks really good, since there's a great explanation why we saw more whales: we had more boats, more eyes, so we spotted more whales. It doesn't mean there were actually more whales to spot.

E) This would be a strengthener, since it highlights the unlikelihood of seeing a whale often, meaning there must be oh so many to spot.

Therefore, the right answer is D.

asperioresfacere

Joined: 03 Nov 2025

Last visit: 24 Apr 2026

Posts: 61

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 106

Posts: 61

Kudos: 53

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 02:57

Kudos

Bookmarks

Evidence : More Ship Encounters with humpback whales in the 2010's then is 2000s
Conclusion : Therefore Whale population must have increased considerably
Key Assumption :
More encounters = more whales
Option A : Talks about sale of whale products not no of whales or sightings.❌
Option B : Just clarifies who restriction applied to. Says nothing about whale population trends .❌
Option C : Strengthen the argument : More sightings (even in another area ) suggest whales are widespread.❌
Option D : Strongly Weakens : More ships , More chances to see whales , Sightings can increase even if the population stays the same.✅
Option E : Again strengthens the argument : If Whales are seen even where ships are rare , Then whales are likely to be abundant.❌

gchandana

Joined: 16 May 2024

Last visit: 24 Apr 2026

Posts: 193

Own Kudos:

142

[1]

Given Kudos: 170

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 193

Kudos: 142

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 03:44

Kudos

Bookmarks

We need to weaken the argument.

A. The conclusion says that, despite whatever whaling took place. So this doesn't do much in terms of weakening.
B. This extra detail doesn't help.
C. This is also what the premise already says.
D. Yes, the premise says, there were more ships encountering humpback whales, and then goes on to conclude that the population increased. But what if the population hasn't changed much? It is the number of ships encountering them that has increased, so we would just see the sightings increase, which doesn't necessarily mean the population has increased.
E. This partly strengthens the argument.

Option D.

Bunuel

This question was provided by Experts'Global
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

Sujithz001

Joined: 09 Jun 2024

Last visit: 06 Feb 2026

Posts: 101

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 75

Posts: 101

Kudos: 46

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 04:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

Okay Easy easy - author is trying to intimidate us by throwing lots of timeline, but we won't. Just calm down & pay attention to what's required.

Weaken the argument:

Conclusion: Number of humpback whales increased in 2010 compared to 2000 despite whatever whaling was done.

Premise: In 2010, there were more reportings done by ships than when compared to 2009.

Assumption (Holding link): Reportings done by ships were true.

Answer: D

Reason: Just because of increased number of ships in 2010, there can be multiple sightings of the same whale, thus weakening the holding link.

Not the answer & reason:

C - Increase in coastal sightings doesn't logically seem to have anything to directly weaken the link.

JiriNovacek

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 07 Feb 2026

Posts: 17

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 17

Kudos: 9

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 04:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

D) is correct, since it wakens the argument most by saying that more rampant whaling were seen because of increased amount of ships not because the population of rampant whaling has increased

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 28 Mar 2026

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 134

Kudos: 121

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 04:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

By 1970, rampant whaling had reduced the population of humpback whales to ten percent of its original size. In response, a worldwide moratorium on whaling was enacted. By 2009, the population had largely recovered, and the moratorium was eased in a few restricted areas. During the 2010s, reports of ships encountering humpback whales on the open increased in comparison with the reports in the 2000s. Therefore, despite whatever whaling took place, the humpback whale population must have increased considerably during the 2010s.

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

A. Throughout the 2010s, the sale of products derived from humpback whales was more strictly regulated than whaling was.
(It does not tell why the sightings of whales increased) Wrong

B. The whaling restrictions applied to both private and government whalers.
(This does not weaken the argument, it only says that restuctions were applied in broader sense) Wrong

C. Humpback whale sightings in coastal regions increased in number, greatly, during the 2010s.
(If the numbers of sightings increased then maybe the number of whales have indeed increased. It strengths the argument) Wrong

D. There were significantly greater number of ships in the sea in the 2010s than in the 2000s.
(If the number of ships were greater in 2010s, then maybe they encountered the same whales more times, so the sightings increased and not because of actual increase in population size, maybe the population has remained same or even decreases but because of more ships the reports show them increased) Correct

E. Most humpback whale sightings on the open sea in the 2010s occurred in regions where there were very few ships. (If sightings occured even where there were few ships, then maybe the population actually increased.) Wrong

msignatius

Joined: 28 Aug 2025

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 131

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 31

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, Marketing

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

WE:Marketing (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

Posts: 131

Kudos: 98

[1]

18 Dec 2025, 05:13

Kudos

Bookmarks

While this is quite obviously a weakening question, another way to look at it is - is there an alternative explanation of why ships are reporting more humpback whales in the seas, than perhaps the assumption that this is because of an increase in the whale population? (The stem also adds that this has happened despite the easing of whaling restrictions in certain areas, which for me felt more like an element to distract you from the core issue and maximize the challenge.)

So the weakener may be an alternative explanation. Great. On to the options:

A: We're looking at a perceived increase in whale populations, not regulations on products derived from the animal. Reject because irrelevant.

B: Whoever the whaling restrictions applied to, and now no longer apply to, won't explain why ships report more whales, and neither will weaken the conclusion that this is because of an increase in whale population.

C: Coastal sightings may purely be an unrelated phenomenon here - More whales in the coast would, in fact, even be because of rampant whaling in the high seas. Eliminate.

D: The answer! This one has little to do with the easing of restrictions, but definitely presents an alternative for why we perceive an increase in whale numbers. More ships means a higher probability for sighting. So more reportings. There we go.

E: This strengthens the argument - if sightings happened in places with the fewest of ships, that shows how a larger number of whales may be present in the area. It could also mean that the whales avoid areas with too many ships, which doesn't really comment on an increase or decrease in the animal's numbers.

Bunuel