Eurasian water milfoil, a weed not native to Frida Lake

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:35 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:2 members
Eurasian water milfoil, a weed not native to Frida Lake, has reproduced prolifically since being accidentally introduced there. In order to eliminate the weed, biologists proposed treating infested parts of the lake with a certain herbicide that is nontoxic for humans and aquatic animals. However, the herbicide might damage populations of certain rare plant species that the lake contains. For this reason local officials rejected the proposal.

Which of the following, if true, points out the most serious weakness in the officials' grounds for rejecting the biologists' proposal?

A)The continuing spread of Eurasian water milfoil in Frida Lake threatens to choke out the lake's rare plant species.
B) Because of ecological conditions prevailing in its native habitat, Eurasian water milfoil is not as dominant there as it is in Frida Lake.
C) The proliferation of Eurasian water milfoil in Frida Lake has led to reductions in the populations of some species of aquatic animals.
D) Although Eurasian water milfoil could be mechanically removed from Frida Lake, eliminating the weed would take far longer this way than it would using herbicides.
E) Unless Eurasian water milfoil is completely eliminated from Frida Lake, it will quickly spread again once herbicide treatments or other control measures cease.

OA:A

Source :GMATPrep EP2

Please explain POE

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:41 pm
(A) Interesting. So the herbicide may damage, i.e. reduce, the populations of the rare plant species, but A says that the Eurasian water milfoil may choke out the rare plant species. Choking out sounds as bad as or worse than damaging populations. So maybe using the herbicide is better than the alternative. This is probably the right answer, but let's check the rest to make sure.

(B) What we are concerned with is what is going in in Frida lake, not how things go elsewhere in a different type of situation.

(C) This is interesting information, but what the officials are clearly concerned about is the rare plants, and this does not address their concerns. In fact, for all we know the officials desire a reduction in the populations of some species of aquatic animals.

(D) At issue is not whether using herbicides is faster or slower than other methods. At issue is the effect of the herbicides on the rare plant populations.

(E) This does not address the officials' concerns about the effects of the herbicides on the rare plants.

So the best answer is A.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:08 am

by meenakshimiyer » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:01 pm
Reason for rejection: Herbicides might destroy some population of rare plan species that the lake contains.
Option (A) simply states that if Eurasian milfoil if not treated it might damage populations of certain rare plant species that the lake contains, thus damage to the rare plant species/animals is inevitable. Weed also has other harmful effects. So, avoiding the use of herbicides won't be helpful. Hence, A is the answer.