BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Lobsters

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:3 members

Lobsters

by kaulnikhil » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:49 pm
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:45 am
Thanked: 2 times

B

by sumank8216 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:29 pm
B :correct
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 8:01 am
Thanked: 4 times

by italian7745 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:57 am
IMO E
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:3 members

by kaulnikhil » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:42 pm
OA E ..
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:36 pm
By POE i came down to E. But not sure how E would weaken. Any thoughts?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:09 am

by Kenen750 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:23 pm
I would go with B. "E" is out of scope.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:57 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:720

by gmat_dest » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:43 pm
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters. ---- OOS
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors. ---- Here we are talking about lobsters which are caught in the harbor.

(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water. --- OOS
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster. ----- OOS
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

----Notice the scope shift, when he says "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases. " as evidence for the "pointless" conclusion.

We are talking about Lobsters contracting disease. Lobsters may not be harmed by those diseases but they can still be carriers. Hence E is correct.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Lobsters

by BlindVision » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:10 pm
kaulnikhil wrote:Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.
Choice B

The conclusion calls the proposal "pointless" and raises a longevity issue because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

B) Weakens that conclusion by providing a reason that lobsters do have longevity because they live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
Life is a Test
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:18 pm
Location: Chicago
Thanked: 8 times

by riteshbindal » Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:57 pm
IMO E.
For B to be true, there should have been some hint in the passage about industrial water or open ocean. However E says that humans often illl when they eat lobsters with gill disease. Now if this is true, it means that lobsters do suffer with gill disease and it weakens the argument which says that lobsters dont live enough to be suffering with gill disease.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:07 am
Location: Bahrain
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:720

by jainpiyushjain » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:52 am
What level question would this be ?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:03 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:700

by shenoydevika » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:12 am
I believe the answer is E.

The conclusion is that the proposal is pointless because lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed by the disease. As Ritesh says, the argument gives us no information about open ocean and industrial harbors so B cannot be the answer. E, on the other hand, gives us a solid reason for the proposal to be useful. The humans who eat infected lobsters fall ill. Therefore the proposal is useful as it will prevent infection of lobsters. Options E is the only one which seriously weakens the argument that the proposal is pointless!
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:38 am
as on all of these problems, specify the issue before you start: you are looking for a reason why the proposal is not pointless.
in other words, because the point of the passage is to argue that the plan is pointless, we must find something concrete that the plan will achieve (i.e., a point behind it).

when you read the argument, you may already have a sense of where this is going.
specifically, the argument states that lobsters generally don't suffer any ill effects from gill diseases (since they normally die too soon) -- but there's nothing about the potential impact on humans who might eat the lobsters.
as human beings reading the passage -- which explicitly deals with lobsters caught for human consumption -- you should definitely be thinking about this! "ok, but what about the people who have to eat diseased seafood?"

if (e) is true, then the plan will reduce the chances that lobster eaters will get sick. if that's the case, the plan is definitely not pointless.

if anything, (b) actually helps the argument a little bit.
according to the argument, the lobsters that are actually caught are the ones in the harbor, not in the open sea. if statement (b) is true, that means the lobsters in the harbor (= the ones that people actually catch to eat) are even less likely to live long enough to be affected, thus backing up one of the argument's key supporting statements.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1