Weighing in at roughly one ton of whiskers, flippers, and blubber, and

Question

Weighing in at roughly one ton of whiskers, flippers, and blubber, and bone each, Stellers are the largest and most northerly of all sea lions. Many spend the summers on Alaska's Chiswell Island-resting, battling, breeding, and feeding. Stellars have suffered a mysterious population decline of about two-thirds since the 1960s, most likely due to pollution, disease, and competition from commercial fishing. Stellers should be considered an endangered species and protected from outside dangers.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

A) Stellers are not a popular animal among the zoo-visiting population and therefore are not worth saving.

B) It would take too many resources to save animals as big as Stellers.

C) There is no proof that the decline in population among Stellers is due to outside dangers.

D) A species must suffer population declines of 90% or more to be put on the endangered species list..

E) Endangered species sometimes die out anyway.

Source : 800Score

pushpitkc · Answer

The argument talks about the declining numbers of Steller Sea Lions.
The number of sea lions has been dwindling and nearly 2/3rds of the sea lions
have died. The author concludes that  the Steller Sea Lions must be put on 
the endangered species list and be protected from outside dangers .

A flaw in the reasoning can be  "A species must suffer population declines of 
90% or more to be put on the endangered species list"(Option D)  because as 
the species has suffered only 2/3rd of the decline, it cant be put in the endangered 
species list.

rohitbedi3 · Answer

A. Out of scope: The argument is not about whether STELLERS are popular among zoo-visiting population (or worth saving), but about they should be saved or not. Notice how argument indeed believes that the stellers are worth saving as per last sentence of the passage.
B. Again #resources is not the concern; only whether they should be labeled as endangered or not is the point of discussion
C. Irrelevant. As the author already mentions that there is a decline. Whether it be because of pollution or outside danger is not important here.
 D. CORRECT. If this were true, a species labelled endangered have a criteria to met, which is 90%, and, as per the argument, the species has only suffered 2/3 or 66% of the decline. 
 E. Irrelevant. This maybe true, but the argument is about whether the species should be labelled endangered and not about what sometimes happens to a species.

Hope this helps!

HKD1710 · Answer

Weighing in at roughly one ton of whiskers, flippers, and blubber, and bone each, Stellers are the largest and most northerly of all sea lions. Many spend the summers on Alaska's Chiswell Island-resting, battling, breeding, and feeding. Stellars have suffered a mysterious population decline of about two-thirds since the 1960s, most likely due to pollution, disease, and competition from commercial fishing. Stellers should be considered an endangered species and protected from outside dangers.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

A) Stellers are not a popular animal among the zoo-visiting population and therefore are not worth saving.

B) It would take too many resources to save animals as big as Stellers.

C) There is no proof that the decline in population among Stellers is due to outside dangers.

D) A species must suffer population declines of 90% or more to be put on the endangered species list..

E) Endangered species sometimes die out anyway.

Source: 800Score

Chef · Answer

Option C and D are contenders for me.

I would go with Option D.

Conclusion: They should be considered an Endangered species and must be protected from outside dangers.

Reasoning: 2/3rd died because of pollution, disease and competition. 66.66% but we need 90% to label as endangered

Option D is new information. Option D is not the flaw in the argument itself but per question 'if true, it does indicate that there is a flaw in the argument'.

Please provide the OA.

protimakudnu@yahoo.com · Answer

I think C is the answer because there is no evidence which shows they are in danger.

onkargm · Answer

D  should be the answer. As  C  states that there is no proof that the decline in Stellars is due to outside dangers, but that is not the point, the point is whether the Stellars are endangered and thus should be protected from outside dangers. Question stem states that the population has been declined by 2/3 i.e. 66%. But in option  D , it is clearly stated that in order to put on list of endangered specie, population of that specie must be declined by 90%, this clearly shows flaw in the argument.

sallysea · Answer

Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!

Fdambro294 · Answer

These question types are a little more specialized. The question stem is essentially asking you to find the logical flaw in the argument itself. Then, you are looking for the answer choice that exposes this flaw in reasoning from the facts presented to the conclusion made.

The author really uses only one major premise to get to his conclusion that the species is endangered and should be protected: the fact that the species saw a population decline of 2/3.

A similar argument:

The enrollment at XYZ College has declined by 66%. Therefore, XYZ College is in danger of closing and the government should help it.

The first thing someone should ask, even before the discussion comes up about whether to help the college, is the following: does a 66% decline in enrollment necessarily mean that the college is in danger of closing down?

While not a perfect analogous argument, this is close to what is going on in the given argument.

There is one primary premise given: the population of this one animal has mysteriously declined by (2/3). However, just because a species has declined by 2/3, does this necessarily mean the population is endangered?

The question asks us to find a premise that, if true, exposes this flaw in reasoning.

C discusses the level of proof regarding the cause of the population decline. Whether the cause of the population decline is outside dangers or a normal balancing of an overpopulated species, it does not matter. This premise does not point out and expose the flaw in the logical reasoning.

Regardless of the cause, the author has assumed that a 2/3 decline in species X’s population necessarily means that species X is endangered.

Answer D, if it were true, would expose this logical flaw.

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Weighing in at roughly one ton of whiskers, flippers, and blubber, and

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Weighing in at roughly one ton of whiskers, flippers, and blubber, and

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia