Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

Rabbits were introduced to Numa Island

Expert replies
by imyhpark » Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:18 pm
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, Pls explain why E is not the answer
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by deepak4mba » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:09 pm
IMO C.

OA plz?
Join the discussion

by thephoenix » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:23 pm
imyhpark wrote: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.
IMO E is actually supporting the conclusion stating that it definitely will kill rabit and also will threaten the Bilby
i was b/n B and C
i am surprised y B is wrong
any one
Join the discussion

by sumanr84 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:53 pm
imyhpark wrote: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.
- There is no information as to how the virus is going to affect the other native animals on the island.
B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
- This info may be correct but not to our interest here,our agenda here is the effect of virus on bibly.
C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
- This indicates that even if virus is not introduced, bilbies are anyway going to die and rabbit population will continue
to increase. This certainly weaken the conclusion part - 'increase the threat to native wildlife' as threat exists anyway.
D. The virus that the government proposes to use has been successfully used elsewhere to control populations of rabbits.
- Population of rabbit may have been controlled but here the agenda is to save bilby population.
E. There is no alternative means of reducing the rabbit population that would involve no threat to the bilby.
- This is strengthening the conclusion towards the use of virus.

So,IMO : C
I am on a break !!
Join the discussion