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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

sea otters!!

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pmFollowed by: 14 members
Thanked: 127 times
by gmat_perfect » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:19 pm
In the late 1980's, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean began to decline. Of the two plausible explanations for the decline-increased predation by killer whales or disease-disease is the more likely. After all, a concurrent sharp decline in the populations of seals and sea lions was almost certainly caused by a pollution-related disease, which could have spread to sea otters, whereas the population of killer whales did not change noticeably.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

A. Killer whales in the North Pacific usually prey on seals and sea lions but will, when this food source is scarce, seek out other prey.
B. There is no indication that substantial numbers of sea otters migrated to other locations from the North Pacific in the 1980's.
C. Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980's, sea otters were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.
D. Following the decline in the population of the sea otters, there was an increase in the population of sea urchins, which are sea otters' main food source.
E. The North Pacific populations of seals and sea lions cover a wider geographic area than does the population of sea otters.

OA: A
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pmFollowed by: 614 members
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:41 pm
gmat_perfect wrote:In the late 1980's, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean began to decline. Of the two plausible explanations for the decline-increased predation by killer whales or disease-disease is the more likely. After all, a concurrent sharp decline in the populations of seals and sea lions was almost certainly caused by a pollution-related disease, which could have spread to sea otters, whereas the population of killer whales did not change noticeably.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

A. Killer whales in the North Pacific usually prey on seals and sea lions but will, when this food source is scarce, seek out other prey.
B. There is no indication that substantial numbers of sea otters migrated to other locations from the North Pacific in the 1980's.
C. Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980's, sea otters were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.
D. Following the decline in the population of the sea otters, there was an increase in the population of sea urchins, which are sea otters' main food source.
E. The North Pacific populations of seals and sea lions cover a wider geographic area than does the population of sea otters.
Let's paraphrase the argument:

There are two possible causes for an event. Conclusion: cause #1 is more likely than cause #2.

When we're asked to weaken this form of argument, the correct answer will most likely make cause #2 more attractive.

So, our prediction: a reason why killer whales could be responsible for the decline in otters.

(A) fits the bill perfectly; even though killer whales don't usually snack on otters, the scarcity of the whales' normal food source has led whales to dine elsewhere.

Of importance, (A) doesn't require us to bring in any outside knowledge to support it; the stimulus itself provides the key fact: there's been a concurrent sharp decline in the populations of seals and sea lions, the whales' normal food source.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 31 times

by paes » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:08 pm
good explanation Stuart.

But E is also weakening the argument.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 6 times

by pnk » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:11 pm
paes wrote:good explanation Stuart.

But E is also weakening the argument.
Feel, E is not relevant - it does not address either cause 1 or 2. Killer whale is not even mentioned
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 173 times
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:00 pm
paes wrote:good explanation Stuart.

But E is also weakening the argument.
My 2 cents :

Pattern:

Event X is caused by A or B. The stem says A caused X.

How can we weaken it??? Just the opposite. A didnot cause X, whereas B caused X.

X: Decline in population of Seaotters

A: Pollution related disease

B: predation by Killer whales

From option A, we can directly weaken the premises on the stem is based.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 173 times
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:02 pm
paes wrote:good explanation Stuart.

But E is also weakening the argument.
bhai, can u plz just put across ur thought process. Let me see if i can construe something out of it...

may be option E is out of scope..but i am eager to see some explanation frm ur end..

So that we are not repeating the same mistake in the test...
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 amFollowed by: 26 members
Thanked: 56 times

by mundasingh123 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:22 pm
Whats the source ?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 amFollowed by: 10 members
Thanked: 20 times
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:55 pm
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
gmat_perfect wrote:In the late 1980's, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean began to decline. Of the two plausible explanations for the decline-increased predation by killer whales or disease-disease is the more likely. After all, a concurrent sharp decline in the populations of seals and sea lions was almost certainly caused by a pollution-related disease, which could have spread to sea otters, whereas the population of killer whales did not change noticeably.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

A. Killer whales in the North Pacific usually prey on seals and sea lions but will, when this food source is scarce, seek out other prey.
B. There is no indication that substantial numbers of sea otters migrated to other locations from the North Pacific in the 1980's.
C. Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980's, sea otters were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times.
D. Following the decline in the population of the sea otters, there was an increase in the population of sea urchins, which are sea otters' main food source.
E. The North Pacific populations of seals and sea lions cover a wider geographic area than does the population of sea otters.
Let's paraphrase the argument:

There are two possible causes for an event. Conclusion: cause #1 is more likely than cause #2.

When we're asked to weaken this form of argument, the correct answer will most likely make cause #2 more attractive.

So, our prediction: a reason why killer whales could be responsible for the decline in otters.

(A) fits the bill perfectly; even though killer whales don't usually snack on otters, the scarcity of the whales' normal food source has led whales to dine elsewhere.

Of importance, (A) doesn't require us to bring in any outside knowledge to support it; the stimulus itself provides the key fact: there's been a concurrent sharp decline in the populations of seals and sea lions, the whales' normal food source.
Thanks Stuart!
May I know what's wrong with C but?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pmFollowed by: 5 members
Location: USA
Thanked: 29 times

by Target2009 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:51 pm
In the late 1980's, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean began to decline. Of the two plausible explanations for the decline-increased predation by killer whales or disease-disease is the more likely. After all, a concurrent sharp decline in the populations of seals and sea lions was almost certainly caused by a pollution-related disease, which could have spread to sea otters, whereas the population of killer whales did not change noticeably.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the reasoning?

A. Killer whales in the North Pacific usually prey on seals and sea lions but will, when this food source is scarce, seek out other prey.
B. There is no indication that substantial numbers of sea otters migrated to other locations from the North Pacific in the 1980's. - Strengthen
C. Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980's, sea otters were absent from many locations where they had been relatively common in former times. - Not related
D. Following the decline in the population of the sea otters, there was an increase in the population of sea urchins, which are sea otters' main food source.- Outside of scope
E. The North Pacific populations of seals and sea lions cover a wider geographic area than does the population of sea otters. Not related
My Pick A
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:50 am
GMAT Score:540

by svsan_81 » Sun May 08, 2011 4:17 am
What is the Difficulty level for this Question?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:03 pmFollowed by: 1 member

by needthis » Tue May 17, 2011 9:58 am
Tricky one! I have never encountered such question with two causes. I spend a lot of time just
to understand what I was suppose to weaken.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by ArunangsuSahu » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:56 am
(A)..Supports the Killer Whale reason
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:46 pm
I think this was easy and direct.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:51 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by Lifetron » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:37 am
A !
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:01 am

by apoorv01 » Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:16 am
In my opinion A and E both have the scope to challenge the conclusion:

For A : This option is intact Up to point that whales rely on other preys(Probably sea otters) ,But how can we assume that the other prey are Sea otters .It could be possible that whales survive on star fish leaving the sea otter community unharmed. So still the scope is open for sea otters dying of pollution and not because they felt prey to whales

For E : the sea lions and seals are spread across larger geo area,If a certain area is affected by disease where the sea otters are not present and sea lions and seals were present then reduction in their total population(due to a certain pollution affected area) will say that seals died of pollution but sea otters did not die of pollution disease as they were not present in affected geo area . In this case E weakens the argument . but if the pollution disease was there where bot seals and otters were present then E can not be the answer.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply