To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blockin

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740
To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

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

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.

OA: C

Why is Option A wrong?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:24 am
richachampion wrote:To prevent a newly built dam on the Chiff River from blocking the route of fish migrating to breeding grounds upstream, the dam includes a fish pass, a mechanism designed to allow fish through the dam. Before the construction of the dam and fish pass, several thousand fish a day swam upriver during spawning season. But in the first season after the project's completion, only 300 per day made the journey. Clearly, the fish pass is defective.

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

(A) Fish that have migrated to the upstream breeding grounds do not return down the Chiff River again.
(B) On other rivers in the region, the construction of dams with fish passes has led to only small decreases in the number of fish migrating upstream.
(C) The construction of the dam stirred up potentially toxic river sediments that were carried downstream.
(D) Populations of migratory fish in the Chiff River have been declining slightly over the last 20 years.
(E) During spawning season, the dam releases sufficient water far migratory fish below the dam to swim upstream.

OA: C

Why is Option A wrong?
P1: Fish pass constructed to allow fish to swim upstream through the pass for breeding.
P2: Before construction, 1000 fishes swam upstream.
P3: After completion, only 300!
C: Fish pass defective.

Alternative causes for weakening -> What if the fish count in the lowstream decreased? This is addressed by C.

Coming to "Why is Option A wrong?"

This is a potential trap. I had it my probable answer list too. However, I eliminated it because the argument does not mention anything that after breeding fish returns downstream! or the upstream is used for breeding purpose only or the downstream has zero breeding so that no fish is available after all fish move to upstream. If A were the answer we would have to assume all the above.

B, IMO, is also a potential trap. It tries to prove the effectiveness of fish pass through Analogy. I was confused between A and B until I read C. C clearly provides an alternative explanation, stating the toxic elements reduced the fish population downstream.

Hope it helps.
Regards,

Pranay