Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 21:09 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 21:09

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Current Student
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2015
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [4]
Given Kudos: 57
Send PM
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4383
Own Kudos [?]: 32870 [0]
Given Kudos: 4453
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2022
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Re: Two family farms, run by Sandens and Brooks [#permalink]
Quote:
Two family farms, run by Sandens and Brooks, use veterinary services provided by Walcor Insurance. One of Walcor`s services is the early detection in young cattle of a certain parasite that does not pose a threat to the animals` health but makes their meat unsuitable for consumption once they are full grown. If the parasite is first detected later, the insurance company has to cover the expense of rejecting the infected animal. Walcor offers a discount for the early detection procedure to Sandens, since they breed animals for meat and grow them to adulthood. However, since Brooks keep most of their cattle for only one season, from the point of view of financial logic, it makes no sense for Walcor to provide a similar discount to Brooks.

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

A) Detecting a parasite in a young animal does not necessarily mean that its meat will be of bad quality later.

B) Some animals have natural resistance to the parasite.

C) Sandens buy large numbers of half-grown cattle from Brooks.

D) The two farms are of approximately the same size.

E) Animals owned by the two farms graze in different pastures.


Sandens has the discount because he grows the animals until adulthood, while Brooks doesn't because he keep the animals for only a season.

Argument: Offering the procedure's discount to Brooks serves no purpose since the insurance won't have to pay if his cattle is infected, considering the costs only become evident when the animals become ready for consumption. This doesn't happen on Brooks' farm because he sells his cattle after a season, meaning they don't become fully adult on his farm.

A) Irrelevant and goes against the facts stated -> if so Sandens' discount should be revised
B) Again it's irrelevant. We must weaken the argument that Brooks doesn't deserve the discount, not whether some of the cattle have resistance.
C) If Sandens buys the half-grown cattle from Brooks the costs of not doing the early detection become a possibility again. This answer is a good candidate.
D) Off scope. Why would size matter?
E) Off scope. We have no information on the spread of the parasite or why it would matter if the cattle graze in different pastures.

C would be my choice! Feel free to correct me if necessary :)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Two family farms, run by Sandens and Brooks [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne