lsat--fish

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

lsat--fish

by ssgmatter » Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:16 pm
Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish
that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One
possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release
daily and which can alter the concentration of
hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the
cause, since the fish recover normal hormone
concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill
shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the
environment.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover
quickly during shutdowns were funded by
paper manufacturers.
(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies
depending on the conditions to which it is
exposed.
(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in
the river far downstream in a few hours.
(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from
the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.
(E) The connection between hormone concentrations
and reproductive abnormalities is not
thoroughly understood.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:42 pm
The author is arguing that dioxin is NOT the cause of the reproductive abnormalities because when the dioxin-producing mill shuts down, fish recover relatively quickly even though dioxin is slow to decompose. (The author must think something else in the mill is causing the abnormalities although he doesn't specify what).

We have to weaken the argument that dioxin is NOT the cause of the abnormalities. So, we should look for a choice that suggests to us that dioxin IS the cause.

Choice C matches this prediction. It tells us that dioxin is ejected from the local environment in a few hours, which, in this context, definitely counts as "relatively quickly". So: the mill shuts down, dioxin disappears, and the fish get better. Sounds like dioxin may well be the cause!

(Because this choice establishes a correlation between dioxin's disappearance and the fishes' recovery, it opens up the possibility that dioxin IS the cause, thereby weakening the argument that it isn't. Remember, to weaken an argument we need only find a fact that renders the conclusion less likely to come true--we don't need to completley refute the argument.)
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto