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

Redeem

amphibians

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:30 pm
Thanked: 22 times

amphibians

by neoreaves » Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:59 am
Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. Not coincidentally, the earth's ozone layer has been continuously deploeted throughout the last fifty years. Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes. Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation. In addition, their gelatinous eggs lack the protection of leathery or hard shells. Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer.

Each of the following, if true would strengthen the argument EXCEPT:

A)Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes.

B) Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from UV-B.

C) Atmospheric populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more protection from UV-B.

D) The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.

E) Amphibian populations have declined continuously for the last 50 years.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:46 am

by chrsrook » Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:31 am
IMO D
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:30 pm
Thanked: 22 times

by neoreaves » Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:44 am
buzzzz....WRONG ....and as a note it really doesn't help anyone if you just type in IMO ...this is a discussion forum where everyone wants to get a better gmat score so it would help all of us if, in future, you can enlighten us with your intellect by letting us know how you arrived at your conclusion or are you just a lucky guesser ?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:42 pm
IMO A

All other options strengthen the argument

B. Those species who are having more protection from UV-B are declining at a lower rate than those who are having less protection from UV-B. Therefore UV-B causes declining of species.

C. Same as B

D. It strengthens the argument by saying smaller natural habitat is not the cause of declining amphibians.

E. UV-B is produced continuously as per passage. So it strengthens by saying amphibian populations have also declined continuously.

Whereas A does not strengthen because our argument is ''cause of declining is depletion of OZONE LAYER'', so argument is not concerned whether UV-B is the only type that can damage genes.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:39 pm

by kovaalan » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:05 pm
IMO C

A) Authors of the passage always consider the argument to be correct. So ensuring that the UV-B is the only type that can damage genes is Strengthening the argument

B) Clearly Strengthening the argument

C) As nothing is mentioned about the Atmospheric population, the answer choice is of no relevance in supporting the argument. Hence the correct answer

D) As the natural habitat has not changed, the additional cause for the decrease in the amphibian population is ruled out. Hence Strengthening the argument.

E) Clearly Strengthening the argument
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:30 pm
Thanked: 22 times

by neoreaves » Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:07 pm
OA: A
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:15 am
Location: Nagpur , India
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:1 members

by rockeyb » Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:03 am
neoreaves wrote:
B) Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from UV-B.

C) Atmospheric populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more protection from UV-B.
Hey what is the difference between B and C . I guess this is a typo error .
"Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess"
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:32 am
rockeyb wrote:
neoreaves wrote:
B) Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from UV-B.

C) Atmospheric populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more protection from UV-B.
Hey what is the difference between B and C . I guess this is a typo error .
Hi

Both conveys the same meaning ie ''species which are having more protection from UV-B are declining at a lower rate than those having less protection from UV-B''

But in the context of the question both options are having their own significance and its not a typing error rather they create confusion. Option B is comparing amphibian and non-amphibian population, whereas option C talks about atmospheric population vs non-amphibian population. One may choose option C as the answer because it does not talk anything about amphibian population.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 pm
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:660

by vivek1110 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:54 am
Atmospheric populations? That makes no sense.
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1