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

Redeem

Weaken the conclusion : Tree Frogs

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:15 pm
Thanked: 2 times

Weaken the conclusion : Tree Frogs

by sid128 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:58 am
Source: https://www.veritasprep.com/gmat-question-bank/

Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner. A new commercially available tape mimics these channels, not only giving the tape the ability to be reused many times, but also increasing the tape's adhesiveness. If tree frogs had become extinct five years ago, as was feared at the time, this tape would not now be available.

Which of the following most weakens the conclusion in the argument above?

a) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction.

b) At the time when concern was raised over the possible extinction of the tree frog, the actual risk of extinction was greatly overestimated.

c) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes.

d) A commercially available adhesive tape that has been chemically treated can be reused in much the same manner as the tape that mimics the footpads of tree frogs.

e) Tests have shown that the footpads of tree frogs become slightly less adhesive as the frogs age.


OA is C

I am not quite satisfied with the official explanation. I believe that A should be the correct answer.
Can you guys help me out?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:3 members

by aman88 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:44 am
Sure!

IMO C

In CR questions, 2 choices will always leave you in doubt.

Remember:
1) Always paraphrase the argument and spot the evidence and the conclusion.
2) Rule out three answer choices.
3) When you're left with two choices, always go back to the conclusion and ask whether the answer choice somehow relates to it.
4) In weaken CR questions, you are not required to find an answer that denies the argument or that proves the conclusion false. You NEED to find information that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.

Lets work on this one now.

Evidence: 1. Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner.
2. Seeing those frogs, a new tape is designed that can be reused and is more adhesive.

Conclusion: If the frogs extinct five years ago this tape would not now be available. And this is more like a fear.

Look at the answer that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.
B,D and E can be instantly eliminated because they are out of the scope of the argument.

Now look at C and A (your main doubt).

A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction. -> How much adhesive they are and how do they differ from the lizards is something which is not related to the conclusion. They have produced a tape based on frogs channels, so out main focus should be on frogs, channels and the tape. ELIMANTE A.

C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes. -> Adds suspicion to the FEAR. This suggests that the tape was produced by seeing footpads of the preserved remains, not live frogs. Bingo! Thats what you were looking for.

Therefore, C.

*I have learnt all this from the experts of BeatTheGMAT.com and my teacher and I thank them all if they are reading this right now.

Thanks.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:15 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by sid128 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:50 am
aman88 wrote:Sure!

IMO C

In CR questions, 2 choices will always leave you in doubt.

Remember:
1) Always paraphrase the argument and spot the evidence and the conclusion.
2) Rule out three answer choices.
3) When you're left with two choices, always go back to the conclusion and ask whether the answer choice somehow relates to it.
4) In weaken CR questions, you are not required to find an answer that denies the argument or that proves the conclusion false. You NEED to find information that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.

Lets work on this one now.

Evidence: 1. Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner.
2. Seeing those frogs, a new tape is designed that can be reused and is more adhesive.

Conclusion: If the frogs extinct five years ago this tape would not now be available. And this is more like a fear.

Look at the answer that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.
B,D and E can be instantly eliminated because they are out of the scope of the argument.

Now look at C and A (your main doubt).

A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction. -> How much adhesive they are and how do they differ from the lizards is something which is not related to the conclusion. They have produced a tape based on frogs channels, so out main focus should be on frogs, channels and the tape. ELIMANTE A.

C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes. -> Adds suspicion to the FEAR. This suggests that the tape was produced by seeing footpads of the preserved remains, not live frogs. Bingo! Thats what you were looking for.

Therefore, C.

*I have learnt all this from the experts of BeatTheGMAT.com and my teacher and I thank them all if they are reading this right now.

Thanks.
Great explanation.
However, this passage talks about extinction of Tree Frogs. Extinction means the species is wiped out from the face of the earth. This also means that there are no dead frogs to experiment with.
If that is the case, no ideas can be taken from foot of Tree Frogs. Perhaps, scientists would have to turn to some other species which has similar mechanism of sticking to trees. Due to this reason I felt that A might be a correct answer.

What I am thinking might be too far fetched, but I have expressed my concerns above.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:3 members

by aman88 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:06 am
sid128 wrote:
aman88 wrote:Sure!

IMO C

In CR questions, 2 choices will always leave you in doubt.

Remember:
1) Always paraphrase the argument and spot the evidence and the conclusion.
2) Rule out three answer choices.
3) When you're left with two choices, always go back to the conclusion and ask whether the answer choice somehow relates to it.
4) In weaken CR questions, you are not required to find an answer that denies the argument or that proves the conclusion false. You NEED to find information that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.

Lets work on this one now.

Evidence: 1. Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner.
2. Seeing those frogs, a new tape is designed that can be reused and is more adhesive.

Conclusion: If the frogs extinct five years ago this tape would not now be available. And this is more like a fear.

Look at the answer that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.
B,D and E can be instantly eliminated because they are out of the scope of the argument.

Now look at C and A (your main doubt).

A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction. -> How much adhesive they are and how do they differ from the lizards is something which is not related to the conclusion. They have produced a tape based on frogs channels, so out main focus should be on frogs, channels and the tape. ELIMANTE A.

C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes. -> Adds suspicion to the FEAR. This suggests that the tape was produced by seeing footpads of the preserved remains, not live frogs. Bingo! Thats what you were looking for.

Therefore, C.

*I have learnt all this from the experts of BeatTheGMAT.com and my teacher and I thank them all if they are reading this right now.

Thanks.
Great explanation.
However, this passage talks about extinction of Tree Frogs. Extinction means the species is wiped out from the face of the earth. This also means that there are no dead frogs to experiment with.
If that is the case, no ideas can be taken from foot of Tree Frogs. Perhaps, scientists would have to turn to some other species which has similar mechanism of sticking to trees. Due to this reason I felt that A might be a correct answer.

What I am thinking might be too far fetched, but I have expressed my concerns above.
I won't deny your reasoning, it's fine, but see what answer you'll get if I ask you to find the conclusion of what choice A is saying.

A. The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction.

Choice A is merely comparing the adhesiveness of frog's channels to certain lizards's channels. We are not looking for the degree if adhesiveness or we are not arguing whether frogs have more adhesiveness or lizards have more or vice-versa. The underlined part is like a decoy that set us thinking in an opposite direction. That's why we ruled out A.

Thanks.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:44 am

by nash.8087 » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:40 am
@aman88 has identified the evidence and conclusion correctly. I want to add a point to his explanation:

The stimulus says "If tree frogs had become extinct five years ago, as was feared at the time, this tape would not now be available."

So, it is author is assuming that "just because the frogs are not extinct, this tape is now available for us." Considering this assumption, we just need to show something that doubts this assumption. Option C does exactly the same; it shows that "there is no need of any living frog for discovering the tape".
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:16 pm
Nice explanation by Aman88!

Sid128 -

Your definition of "extinct" goes a bit too far. "Extinct" means that there are no living animals of that species. There are tasmanian tigers in museums and Carolina parakeets and other extinct animals. So extinct does not mean that there are no dead examples. Actually they have uncovered some mammoths frozen in Russia!! Those have been extinct for thousands of years...

Now, I am not sure if this question turns on "extinct" and if this is may be an unfamiliar word. That is the beauty of the new Veritas question bank. We can tell from the results if a question is unfair and we have already adjusted several questions. If the results from this one seem to be off a bit then we will tree it with a different word in there.

Thanks for using the question bank and for posting the link!
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1