Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
20 Jul 2022, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
77% (01:26) correct
23%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 279
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Peacocks with spectacular plumage are almost always free of parasites. Additionally, evidence shows that the peacocks with parasitic infections are rarely capable of maintaining spectacular plumage. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a brilliant display of feathers somehow provides a defense against parasites.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls the conclusion above into question?
(A) Parasites cause peacocks to lose the ability to maintain spectacular plumage, rather than the other way around.
(B) Peacocks that are free of parasites eat more, on average, than those with parasitic infections.
(C) Other animals that are normally spectacularly colored tend to lose their color when infected by parasites.
(D) Peacocks' plumage normally gets brighter as the birds get older, regardless of infection.
(E) There is no hereditary difference between peacocks with spectacular plumage and those who have lost the ability to maintain spectacular plumage.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls the conclusion above into question?
(A) Parasites cause peacocks to lose the ability to maintain spectacular plumage, rather than the other way around.
(B) Peacocks that are free of parasites eat more, on average, than those with parasitic infections.
(C) Other animals that are normally spectacularly colored tend to lose their color when infected by parasites.
(D) Peacocks' plumage normally gets brighter as the birds get older, regardless of infection.
(E) There is no hereditary difference between peacocks with spectacular plumage and those who have lost the ability to maintain spectacular plumage.
11 Oct 2022, 21:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Peacocks with spectacular plumage are almost always free of parasites. Additionally, evidence shows that the peacocks with parasitic infections are rarely capable of maintaining spectacular plumage. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a brilliant display of feathers somehow provides a defense against parasites.
P1: Peacocks with spectacular plumage are almost always free of parasites.
P2: Parasitic infections are rarely capable of maintaining spectacular plumage
Conclusion : It is reasonable to conclude that a brilliant display of feathers somehow provides a defense against parasites.
So we have to find the statement which can weaken the conclusion. So if we find that brilliant display of feather does not provide a defense against parasites that will be my answer.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls the conclusion above into question?
(A) Parasites cause peacocks to lose the ability to maintain spectacular plumage, rather than the other way around. -> This actually states that brilliant display of feather does not provide a defense against parasites.
(B) Peacocks that are free of parasites eat more, on average, than those with parasitic infections.-> Out of context. How can eating connects infection. Discarded.
(C) Other animals that are normally spectacularly colored tend to lose their color when infected by parasites. -> Discussing related to Other animal, so out of context.
(D) Peacocks' plumage normally gets brighter as the birds get older, regardless of infection. -> So it is not weakening the argument. It is neutral sentence as it is saying there is no linking between plumage with any thing. So discarded.
(E) There is no hereditary difference between peacocks with spectacular plumage and those who have lost the ability to maintain spectacular plumage.
Out of context.
P1: Peacocks with spectacular plumage are almost always free of parasites.
P2: Parasitic infections are rarely capable of maintaining spectacular plumage
Conclusion : It is reasonable to conclude that a brilliant display of feathers somehow provides a defense against parasites.
So we have to find the statement which can weaken the conclusion. So if we find that brilliant display of feather does not provide a defense against parasites that will be my answer.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls the conclusion above into question?
(A) Parasites cause peacocks to lose the ability to maintain spectacular plumage, rather than the other way around. -> This actually states that brilliant display of feather does not provide a defense against parasites.
(B) Peacocks that are free of parasites eat more, on average, than those with parasitic infections.-> Out of context. How can eating connects infection. Discarded.
(C) Other animals that are normally spectacularly colored tend to lose their color when infected by parasites. -> Discussing related to Other animal, so out of context.
(D) Peacocks' plumage normally gets brighter as the birds get older, regardless of infection. -> So it is not weakening the argument. It is neutral sentence as it is saying there is no linking between plumage with any thing. So discarded.
(E) There is no hereditary difference between peacocks with spectacular plumage and those who have lost the ability to maintain spectacular plumage.
Out of context.
26 Oct 2022, 20:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
option C is wrong not because it is talking about another animal. It is wrong because it doesn't really weaken the cause and effect. Even if Other animals that are normally spectacularly coloured tend to lose their colour when infected by parasites, theres no indication if it is the parasite that causes this! . Yes this could have been a weakener in some other answer option , but here when we have a clear winner in A which attacks the cause and effect. C is wrong 
