Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island in the nineteenth century. Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island's agriculture. The government proposes to reduce the population by using a virus that has caused devastating epidemics in rabbit populations elsewhere. There is, however, a chance that the virus will infect the bilby, an endangered native marsupial. The government's plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

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

A. There is less chance that the virus will infect domestic animals on Numa than that it will infect bilbies.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.

OA C

Source: GMAT Prep
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:55 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

OPTION A - INCORRECT
This option seems to look out for the bilby which is clearly in favour of the argument, so this doesn't weaken the argument.

OPTION B - INCORRECT
This doesn't weaken the argument because the argument isn't concern about animals that can prey on the rabbit. Although, it will reduce the population of the rabbits as proposed by the government but it might also prey on the bilby, and since there are non, it doesn't weaken the argument.

OPTION C - CORRECT
If overgrazing by the rabbits endangers the bilbies which the government is trying to protect, it weakens the argument because it clearly increases the treat to native wildlife.

OPTION D - INCORRECT
This doesn't weaken the argument because it implies that the virus the government proposes to use is effective since it has been successfully used elsewhere to control the population of Rabbits.

OPTION E - INCORRECT
This doesn't cause the most serious weakness to the argument because it doesn't mean that the bilby will be endangered, it merely claims that there is no alternative means of reducing the rabbits that will involve no threat to the bilby