GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 16:50

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Turtles and Bakers beach

Author Message
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1329

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 12:16
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 587
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 12:39
IMO B.

If female Merricks return to lay eggs at 10yrs of age, refutation against environmentatlist seriously jeopardized. So the effect wil be immense after another 5 years.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 627
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 13:23
B.

chemical spill happend only 5 years ago. If 10 yrs old turtles returning to the shore to lay eggs means...no chemical spill effect on them. it undermines.

D is a nice trap ( I think).
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 97
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 13:41
I got messed up with D for a while.

But B it is.
The argument provided to prove environmentalists wrong is
"number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased".

So,
B gives an alternate explanation for the increase of Female Turtles retuning.

As soon as a alternate reason for the cause is provided , it is it.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1329
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 14:19
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
IMO B.

If female Merricks return to lay eggs at 10yrs of age, refutation against environmentatlist seriously jeopardized. So the effect wil be immense after another 5 years.

Let me try this again as I spent a decent time and did not arrive at an answer. Shame!

Conclusion

Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

E's prediction is wrong

Q: Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

I guess I got entangled here. Please explain my error in reasoning

argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction is that E's prediction is wrong.

So Need an answer that refutes E's prediction is wrong. means E's prediction is not wrong or right.

How is B leading us there?

B is saying that "Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old."

How can we assume that there were no 10 year old Turtles five years ago?
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 409
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 20:34
icandy,

I think the questions asks to undermine the reasoning in the 'refutation of the Environmentalists prediction' not in the 'Environmentalists prediciton itself'. In other words, it wants you to prove that E's prediction is true - The population will decline.

I understand the reasoning mentioned in the above posts. But there are a few assumptions if B were to be true

1) We are assuming from the time of oil spillage to the turtles' attaining 10yrs, no turtles come to lay their eggs(I guess, every year some or the other turtle turns 10!)
2) Even if you think the above is false, since we are already into fifth year of spillage, we need 5 more years for the turtles to return. What is the guarantee that the spillage will be intact for 5 more years and will prevent the eggs from hatching?

Am I missing something???

Cheers,
Unplugged
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 383
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 21:52
icandy wrote:
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting
ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from
hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s
Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’
prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has
proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?
A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither
Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs
when they are ten years old.
C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea
Beach.
D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase
the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to
nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

even i agree with B..........
but i don't understand why D is wrong............
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 97
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 22:10
2
Unplugged you are right about the Q but I don't agree with the assumptions.

Argument Construction:

Conclusion: Environmentalists are wrong.
Environmentalists: The Turtle population will reduce.

Question : Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

Argument offered in refutation environmentalists’ prediction : Number Female turtles increase --> Population Of Turtle has increased -->Environmentalists are wrong.

Refuted Argument offered in refutation environmentalists’ prediction : Number Female turtles increased due to some OTHER cause --> It does not guaranty that the Population Of Turtle has increased --> The Environmentalists may be right.

Also, another way was to show that the population of Turtles have decreased , u c. But there is no option indicating that....

For example we had Spillage in 1980.
After 5 yrs 1985 , Female turtles returning to lay eggs who were born in 1975.
Now we may assume that number of Female turtles born increased from 1970 - 1975, but as it is mentioned the beach is only place to lay eggs we are not going out of scope. The fact that we select this option "B" provides a alternate explanation why Female Turtle increased.

If option said the Female Turtle return in 3 yrs, doest is explain anything. No. As it would mean
that Environmentalists are wrong as more eggs hatched from 1982 !
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 97
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 22:18
gurpreet07 wrote:

even i agree with B..........
but i don't understand why D is wrong............

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.

Bird is Killed ---> The Population of the Turtle will INCREASE ==> Here we are supporting the
argument again Environmentalists. We need to refute it. Prove that Environmentalists are correct, that the population has decreased.

If D would have said = "Spillage attacks many birds which eat the eggs" then it would have been a contender.

D is a SHELL GAME. Some times the reverse argument is provided to make the trap I almost fell in it too.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 383
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 22:24
gmatavenue wrote:
gurpreet07 wrote:

even i agree with B..........
but i don't understand why D is wrong............

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.

Bird is Killed ---> The Population of the Turtle will INCREASE ==> Here we are supporting the
argument again Environmentalists. We need to refute it. Prove that Environmentalists are correct, that the population has decreased.

If D would have said = "Spillage attacks many birds which eat the eggs" then it would have been a contender.

D is a SHELL GAME. Some times the reverse argument is provided to make the trap I almost fell in it too.

gmatavenue I think you are trying to say that we need to refute the prediction that worlds merrick polulation will decrease.... right...............

But D says the same thing, that if some conditions other than oil spillage is causing sea birds that prey on the eggs to decline......then the population will increase and the argument provided by the envirormentalist will be refuted.............

I hope this make sense........ Please correct me if i am wrong
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1329
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 22:39
I still did not understand. Am I having a blonde moment?
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 97
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 22:44
gurpreet07 wrote:
gmatavenue wrote:
gurpreet07 wrote:

even i agree with B..........
but i don't understand why D is wrong............

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant
decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on
Merrick sea turtle eggs.

Bird is Killed ---> The Population of the Turtle will INCREASE ==> Here we are supporting the
argument again Environmentalists. We need to refute it. Prove that Environmentalists are correct, that the population has decreased.

If D would have said = "Spillage attacks many birds which eat the eggs" then it would have been a contender.

D is a SHELL GAME. Some times the reverse argument is provided to make the trap I almost fell in it too.

gmatavenue I think you are trying to say that we need to refute the prediction that worlds merrick polulation will decrease.... right...............

But D says the same thing, that if some conditions other than oil spillage is causing sea birds that prey on the eggs to decline......then the population will increase and the argument provided by the envirormentalist will be refuted.............

I hope this make sense........ Please correct me if i am wrong

We need to show that Environmentalist are GOOD They are correct. The EGGs have to decline not INCREASE.

Ref@
Conclusion: Environmentalists are wrong.
Environmentalists: The Turtle population will reduce.

Question : Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

Argument offered in refutation environmentalists’ prediction : Number Female turtles increase --> Population Of Turtle has increased -->Environmentalists are wrong.

Refuted Argument offered in refutation environmentalists’ prediction : The Environmentalists may be right.

Actually it is asking to support Environmentalist. To support we have to show what he predicted is correct. The Turtle population might have declined.

But you are saying turtle population is increasing here !!!

Let me know if you agree.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 97
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 03 Feb 2009, 23:17
2
icandy wrote:
I still did not understand. Am I having a blonde moment?

Is the source LSAT ?

Anyways,

I think you missed the construction of the question.

Question : Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

environmentalists’ prediction = " Trutle population will decline"
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction = "Trutle population will NOT decline"
seriously undermines the refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction = " Trutle population will decline"

We can do one of the things
[1] Choose an option to show the Turtle population has declined. But no such option is provided.
[2] Choose an option to say that the increase of Female Turtle is because of some OTHER reason and has nothing to do with SPILL.

The option [B] is doing a DEFENDER role rather than a SUPPORTER role. If we could find something for [1] it would have been a direct SUPPORTER !

Originally posted by gmatavenue on 03 Feb 2009, 22:52.
Last edited by gmatavenue on 03 Feb 2009, 23:17, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 383
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 22:59
i think my brain's fuse is blown now...........phewwwwwwww
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 739
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 23:18
wow..what a tricky question. There is a double negative in the question stem, maling a positve so its almost like you have to determine which anser strengthens the Evorinmentalists point of view. B is the only one. Definately would have got this wrong on the test
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 409
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 23:31
gmatavenue wrote:

Is the source LSAT ?

Anyways,

I think you missed the construction of the question.

Question : Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

environmentalists’ prediction = " Trutle population will decline"
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction = "Trutle population will NOT decline"
seriously undermines the refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction = " Trutle population will decline"

We can do one of the things
[1] Choose an option to show the Turtle population has declined. But no such option is provided.
[2] Choose an option to say that the increase of Female Turtle is because of some OTHER reason and has nothing to do with SPILL.

The option [B] is doing a DEFENDER role rather than a SUPPORTER role. If we could find something for [1] it would have been a direct SUPPORTER !

I'm in a mess.........
The question wants you to support 'turtle population will decline'.....right?

The DEFENDER(B) says that the population will increase. But, we need something which proves that ' turtle population will decline'

How can this be correct
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 97
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2009, 23:37
unplugged wrote:
gmatavenue wrote:

Is the source LSAT ?

Anyways,

I think you missed the construction of the question.

Question : Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

environmentalists’ prediction = " Trutle population will decline"
refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction = "Trutle population will NOT decline"
seriously undermines the refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction = " Trutle population will decline"

We can do one of the things
[1] Choose an option to show the Turtle population has declined. But no such option is provided.
[2] Choose an option to say that the increase of Female Turtle is because of some OTHER reason and has nothing to do with SPILL.

The option [B] is doing a DEFENDER role rather than a SUPPORTER role. If we could find something for [1] it would have been a direct SUPPORTER !

I'm in a mess.........
The question wants you to support that 'turtle population will decline'.....right?

The DEFENDER(B) says that the population has increased. But, we need something which proves that ' turtle population will decline'

How can this be correct

DEFENDER(B) nullifies that the possibility of increase of Turtle population after spillage as it provides an alternate reasoning for increase of Turtle population which is not linked to spillage. That the reason the role is DEFENDER and not SUPPORTER. It is eliminating the possibilities of proving the increase of population after spillage.

The question wants you to support that 'turtle population will decline'.....right?
YES, but I rephrase a bit
The question wants you to support that 'turtle population will decline AFTER THE SPILLAGE'.....right?
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 409
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2009, 00:12
I don't get it man.....

Increase in 'population not linked to spillage' doesn't mean 'decrease in population linked to spillage'. I think a defender should directly mean 'no increase in population linked to spillage'

Aren't we going out of context here by talking about 'population not linked to spillage'

I'm thinking too much or I'm too dumb

Cheers,

Unplugged
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 383
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2009, 01:08
icandy can you please post the OA and the explanation if any..........

I don't wanna get more confused now, this question has eaten my brain........
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 409
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2009, 01:20
The picture is getting hazier by the hour

Now, it seems to me that A is the right answer.

If the spillage hadn't occured when the turtles or the eggs were there, then there is a strong possibility that when the trutles return now( spillage is still intact, mind you) for laying eggs, the eggs will not hatch

Cheers,
Unplugged
Re: Turtles and Bakers beach &nbs [#permalink] 04 Feb 2009, 01:20

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Turtles and Bakers beach

Moderator: chetan2u

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.