Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 02 Sep 2026, 10:40 |
It is currently 02 Sep 2026, 10:40 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0208:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
Aug 2710:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Thought your job leaves no time for GMAT prep? After multiple GMAT attempts and a demanding consulting job, Kshitij improved to 695 in under 2 months. Learn the mindset shifts, study strategy, and execution changes that made the breakthrough possible.
Sep 0410:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What does test anxiety really look like on the GMAT? For many test takers, it does not look like a panic attack. Instead, it shows up as brain fog, rereading, negative comparisons, mental noise....
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
02 Jul 2024, 22:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
40% (01:45) correct
60%
(01:59)
wrong
based on 146
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Environmentalists argue that the recent decline in the population of the Pacific salmon is primarily due to the increase in water pollution levels in the rivers where the salmon spawn. They claim that pollutants have created an environment that is hostile to the salmon, preventing them from reproducing successfully. Therefore, they assert that reducing water pollution will lead to a recovery in the salmon population.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A) There are no other significant factors contributing to the decline in the Pacific salmon population.
B) The level of water pollution in the rivers where the salmon spawn has increased significantly in recent years.
C) The salmon population has declined in all rivers where they spawn, not just in those with increased pollution levels.
D) Reducing water pollution in the rivers where salmon spawn will not have any adverse effects on other species of fish.
E) The pollutants in the rivers are directly harmful to the reproductive processes of the Pacific salmon.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A) There are no other significant factors contributing to the decline in the Pacific salmon population.
B) The level of water pollution in the rivers where the salmon spawn has increased significantly in recent years.
C) The salmon population has declined in all rivers where they spawn, not just in those with increased pollution levels.
D) Reducing water pollution in the rivers where salmon spawn will not have any adverse effects on other species of fish.
E) The pollutants in the rivers are directly harmful to the reproductive processes of the Pacific salmon.
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
02 Jul 2024, 22:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
To identify the assumption, we need to find the unstated premise that the argument relies on. The argument claims that water pollution is the primary cause of the decline in the salmon population and that reducing pollution will lead to a recovery.
A) There are no other significant factors contributing to the decline in the Pacific salmon population.
This is a strong contender because if other significant factors are contributing to the decline, addressing only water pollution might not lead to a recovery in the salmon population.
B) The level of water pollution in the rivers where the salmon spawn has increased significantly in recent years.
While this might support the argument, it is not an assumption the argument depends on. The argument could still hold if pollution levels were always high.
C) The salmon population has declined in all rivers where they spawn, not just in those with increased pollution levels.
This weakens the argument rather than supports it because it suggests factors other than pollution could be responsible for the decline.
D) Reducing water pollution in the rivers where salmon spawn will not have any adverse effects on other species of fish.
This is irrelevant to the argument about the salmon population recovery.
E) The pollutants in the rivers are directly harmful to the reproductive processes of the Pacific salmon.
This is essential to the argument. If the pollutants are not directly harmful, reducing pollution might not lead to a recovery in the salmon population.
The correct answer is:
E) The pollutants in the rivers are directly harmful to the reproductive processes of the Pacific salmon.
A) There are no other significant factors contributing to the decline in the Pacific salmon population.
This is a strong contender because if other significant factors are contributing to the decline, addressing only water pollution might not lead to a recovery in the salmon population.
B) The level of water pollution in the rivers where the salmon spawn has increased significantly in recent years.
While this might support the argument, it is not an assumption the argument depends on. The argument could still hold if pollution levels were always high.
C) The salmon population has declined in all rivers where they spawn, not just in those with increased pollution levels.
This weakens the argument rather than supports it because it suggests factors other than pollution could be responsible for the decline.
D) Reducing water pollution in the rivers where salmon spawn will not have any adverse effects on other species of fish.
This is irrelevant to the argument about the salmon population recovery.
E) The pollutants in the rivers are directly harmful to the reproductive processes of the Pacific salmon.
This is essential to the argument. If the pollutants are not directly harmful, reducing pollution might not lead to a recovery in the salmon population.
The correct answer is:
E) The pollutants in the rivers are directly harmful to the reproductive processes of the Pacific salmon.
05 Jul 2024, 09:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Why is option A wrong here?
Also in option E, a pollutant can always be indirectly related to the decline of the prawns? (For ex. a certain pollutant reacts with an element present inside the river causing a toxic substance )
Also in option E, a pollutant can always be indirectly related to the decline of the prawns? (For ex. a certain pollutant reacts with an element present inside the river causing a toxic substance )
05 Jul 2024, 10:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
This question needs some revision, or at least its answer needs to be changed. First, an Assumption question shouldn't be about choosing the most important assumption. Only one answer should correctly represent an assumption. In this case, A definitely is an assumption, so it must be correct unless it is rewritten. (If there are other significant threats, then it's doubtful that simply reversing this one threat will cause a recovery in the salmon population.
As for E, it isn't really an assumption. We can't be expected to know whether a cause is direct in order for removing it to reverse the problem. Let's look at a very simple but indirect way that pollutants might cause a "hostile environment." What if for some reason pollutants attract sharks, who then eat the salmon, this preventing them from reproducing? Then if we reduce pollution levels, the problem might well be reversed and salmon populations could recover. The argument doesn't rely on pollution directly affecting salmon at all, let alone specifically targeting their reproductive systems.
As for E, it isn't really an assumption. We can't be expected to know whether a cause is direct in order for removing it to reverse the problem. Let's look at a very simple but indirect way that pollutants might cause a "hostile environment." What if for some reason pollutants attract sharks, who then eat the salmon, this preventing them from reproducing? Then if we reduce pollution levels, the problem might well be reversed and salmon populations could recover. The argument doesn't rely on pollution directly affecting salmon at all, let alone specifically targeting their reproductive systems.
