Q - Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by deer ticks. Generally deer ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage from feeding on infected whitefooted mice. However, certain other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium. Therefore, if the population of these other species were increased, the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium? and hence the number of people contracting Lyme disease-would likely decline.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Ticks do not suffer any adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in humans.
B. There are no known cases of a human's contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
D. A single host animal can be the source of bacteria for many tick larvae.
E. None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Strengthen CR
This topic has expert replies
-
MartyMurray
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
- Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
- Thanked: 955 times
- Followed by:140 members
- GMAT Score:800
A. Ticks do not suffer any adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in humans.
The argument is about reducing the incidence of Lyme disease by having the ticks not pick up the bacterium. So the fact that the ticks to not suffer adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium is irrelevant.
B. There are no known cases of a human's contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
This does not strengthen an argument that introducing animals other than white-footed mice will reduce the number of people experiencing of Lyme disease.
C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
This works. If deer ticks feed only once while in the larval stage, then if they feed on an animals that do not carry the Lyme disease bacterium, they will not afterward go on to feed on mice that do carry the bacterium. So likely they will not pick up the bacterium.
D. A single host animal can be the source of bacteria for many tick larvae.
This does not strengthen the conclusion that introducing animals without the bacterium will reduce the number of people who experience Lyme disease.
E. None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans.
This is a trap answer, because what this says indicates that the ticks will not pick up other bacteria from the other animals and transmit them to humans. So what this choice says seems to indicate that the strategy will be positive for human health. However, the argument is not about human health in general. It is about Lyme disease.
There is one answer choice that clearly strengthens the argument, answer choice C.
The argument is about reducing the incidence of Lyme disease by having the ticks not pick up the bacterium. So the fact that the ticks to not suffer adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium is irrelevant.
B. There are no known cases of a human's contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
This does not strengthen an argument that introducing animals other than white-footed mice will reduce the number of people experiencing of Lyme disease.
C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
This works. If deer ticks feed only once while in the larval stage, then if they feed on an animals that do not carry the Lyme disease bacterium, they will not afterward go on to feed on mice that do carry the bacterium. So likely they will not pick up the bacterium.
D. A single host animal can be the source of bacteria for many tick larvae.
This does not strengthen the conclusion that introducing animals without the bacterium will reduce the number of people who experience Lyme disease.
E. None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans.
This is a trap answer, because what this says indicates that the ticks will not pick up other bacteria from the other animals and transmit them to humans. So what this choice says seems to indicate that the strategy will be positive for human health. However, the argument is not about human health in general. It is about Lyme disease.
There is one answer choice that clearly strengthens the argument, answer choice C.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Whenever you're asked to STRENGTHEN or WEAKEN an argument, it's implied that there is a logical flaw - a missing piece - in the argument. Break down the argument carefully and identify what's missing before diving into the answer choices.
Premises:
- deer ticks pick up Lyme bacterium while in larval stage, feeding on white-footed mice
- larvae also feed on other species that do not carry the bacterium
Conclusion:
If the non-bacterium-carrying species were increased, the NUMBER of ticks carrying the bacterium would decline, and the NUMBER of people with the disease would decline
Logical Flaws:
Pay particular attention to the word "number" in CR. Can we justify that fewer ticks would get the disease if we increased other food supplies? Imagine that there was some contaminated yogurt in your fridge. If I said, "just add other food to the fridge, and you won't get sick." Is that logical? You could still get sick if you also ate the yogurt, in addition to the non-contaminated food.
The flaw in this argument: the author is assuming that if there are more non-infected food sources, then there will be ticks who do not feed on ANY infected sources (the white-footed mice). The argument would be invalid if we found out that ticks fed a little bit on white-footed mice in addition to the other new sources.
Strengthen:
In order to strengthen the argument, we need to make it MORE LIKELY that the ticks (at least some of them) were avoiding white-footed mice altogether.
A. Ticks do not suffer any adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in humans.
Irrelevant. We only care whether they acquire it.
B. There are no known cases of a human's contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
Irrelevant. The chain of transmission is white-footed mice --> ticks --> humans.
C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
If this were true, then it reduces the possibility that the ticks are feeding on white-footed mice AND these non-infected species. This makes it MORE LIKELY that the ticks (at least some of them) were avoiding white-footed mice altogether. Correct!
D. A single host animal can be the source of bacteria for many tick larvae.
Yes, but that animal could be a white-footed mouse (leading to more carriers) or some other species (fewer carriers). Unclear whether this helps or hurts.
E. None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans
Other bacteria are irrelevant to our argument, which only deals with Lyme disease.
Premises:
- deer ticks pick up Lyme bacterium while in larval stage, feeding on white-footed mice
- larvae also feed on other species that do not carry the bacterium
Conclusion:
If the non-bacterium-carrying species were increased, the NUMBER of ticks carrying the bacterium would decline, and the NUMBER of people with the disease would decline
Logical Flaws:
Pay particular attention to the word "number" in CR. Can we justify that fewer ticks would get the disease if we increased other food supplies? Imagine that there was some contaminated yogurt in your fridge. If I said, "just add other food to the fridge, and you won't get sick." Is that logical? You could still get sick if you also ate the yogurt, in addition to the non-contaminated food.
The flaw in this argument: the author is assuming that if there are more non-infected food sources, then there will be ticks who do not feed on ANY infected sources (the white-footed mice). The argument would be invalid if we found out that ticks fed a little bit on white-footed mice in addition to the other new sources.
Strengthen:
In order to strengthen the argument, we need to make it MORE LIKELY that the ticks (at least some of them) were avoiding white-footed mice altogether.
A. Ticks do not suffer any adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in humans.
Irrelevant. We only care whether they acquire it.
B. There are no known cases of a human's contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
Irrelevant. The chain of transmission is white-footed mice --> ticks --> humans.
C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
If this were true, then it reduces the possibility that the ticks are feeding on white-footed mice AND these non-infected species. This makes it MORE LIKELY that the ticks (at least some of them) were avoiding white-footed mice altogether. Correct!
D. A single host animal can be the source of bacteria for many tick larvae.
Yes, but that animal could be a white-footed mouse (leading to more carriers) or some other species (fewer carriers). Unclear whether this helps or hurts.
E. None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans
Other bacteria are irrelevant to our argument, which only deals with Lyme disease.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
