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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

KIller whale!

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 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:04 am
In the late 1980s, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline: predation, possibly by killer whales, or disease. Of these two, disease is the more likely, since a concurrent sharp decline in populations of seals and sea lions is believed to have been caused by disease, and diseases that infect these creatures are likely to be able to infect sea otters also.

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 the sea otter population at any North Pacific location declined in the 1980s because of substantial numbers of sea otters migrating to other locations.
(C) Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980s, 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.

I was between A and B. Which one is correct?

Why the other one is wrong?

Thanks.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:47 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 22 times
GMAT Score:680

by beatthegmatinsept » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:19 am
gmat_perfect wrote:In the late 1980s, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline: predation, possibly by killer whales, or disease. Of these two, disease is the more likely, since a concurrent sharp decline in populations of seals and sea lions is believed to have been caused by disease, and diseases that infect these creatures are likely to be able to infect sea otters also.

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 the sea otter population at any North Pacific location declined in the 1980s because of substantial numbers of sea otters migrating to other locations.

I was between A and B. Which one is correct?

Why the other one is wrong?

Thanks.
IMO A is better than B. I somehow find B irrelevant because it brings migration into the picture. B says there was no indication of decline in population BUT does not talk specifically about decline as a result of killer whales or disease. So we cant really infer that its weakening the conclusion directly. Also, it brings migration into the picture, which I find irrelevant.

A on the other hand does talk about the possibility of killer whales driving the decline in sea otters.

Whats the OA?
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:47 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by Prashantbhardwaj » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:21 am
I believe A is the answer.

B is actually strengthening our point that if migration is not the cause then it increases the chances of disease and predation to be the cause are more likely.

Rest are not not related and E is also strengthening our point.

So A is the answer.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 amFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 135 times

by selango » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:36 am
Gmatperfect,

I remembered this question.U posted the same question before and explained by stuart.Check this.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/sea-otters-t59820.html
--Anand--
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 31 times

by FightWithGMAT » Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:38 am
gmat_perfect wrote:In the late 1980s, the population of sea otters in the North Pacific began to decline. There are two plausible explanations for the decline: predation, possibly by killer whales, or disease. Of these two, disease is the more likely, since a concurrent sharp decline in populations of seals and sea lions is believed to have been caused by disease, and diseases that infect these creatures are likely to be able to infect sea otters also.

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 the sea otter population at any North Pacific location declined in the 1980s because of substantial numbers of sea otters migrating to other locations.
(C) Along the Pacific coast of North America in the 1980s, 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.

I was between A and B. Which one is correct?

Why the other one is wrong?

Thanks.
Though the ans is A. The real confusion was b/w A and E.
Actually B is not weakening but strengthening the conclusion

The conclusion is based on the comparison of Seals and Sea Lions AND Otter. It is assumed that they are comparatively similar in most of the aspects.

E says that they are different in one aspect.

Experts pls help in this.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:46 am
He doesn't like to search his own questions on the internet. I am not sure whether he knows how to search
selango wrote:Gmatperfect,

I remembered this question.U posted the same question before and explained by stuart.Check this.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/sea-otters-t59820.html
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:45 pm
Location: USA
Thanked: 4 times
GMAT Score:750

by kal750gmat » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:32 pm
We're looking to weaken the reasoning. The author concludes that disease is more likely to cause the decline of sea otters because seals and sea lions have been caused by disease.

(A) offers support for the alternate explanation for the decline of sea otters (predation) WITHOUT contradicting the information given about the decline of seals and sea lions.

(E) is irrelevant and out of scope. It doesn't weaken the disease argument and it doesn't strengthen the predation argument.
Check out my GMAT videos at www.youtube.com/gmatwalkthrough!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:33 am

by SeemaSkl » Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:33 pm
This is tricky. I am not choosing A because passage says 'concurrent' sharp decline. If A is true, otters will decline after the seals and lions and their decline won't be concurrent. If the premise didn't have this work, A would fit in great.

Anybody thinks it might be E? If seals and lions are not localized to N. Pacific, their disease makes the otters in N. Pacific less likely to be diseased too. Same question was posted in a previous thread (link above) but expert has not explained why not E.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1