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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Powerscore CR bible question

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:07 am
Thanked: 5 times
by paridhi » Sun May 23, 2010 10:50 pm
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument.

(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster
(E) humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Ans is [spoiler](E)[/spoiler]
But i am not able to eliminate choice (B)[/img]
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:31 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 97 times

by liferocks » Mon May 24, 2010 12:05 am
Authors argument is based on the fact that 'hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases' but author does not consider that the infected lobsters may harm others i.t the human who will eat them. Option E clearly states this. Hence ans is E

Option B indirectly supports authors view. Because as per B 'Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors' i.e if the sewage is routed many kilometers offshore ,chances that lobsters will be harmed will be more as they live longer.So the proposal is pointless.
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:07 am
Thanked: 5 times

by paridhi » Mon May 24, 2010 4:26 am
Thanks...makes sense.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:42 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 1 times

by singalong » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:52 pm
Aren't we supposed to look at the conclusion specifically when we need to weaken an arguement?The conclusion states that "..the proposal is pointless...." The last sentence nowhere speaks about humans eating the lobsters.Then how is the OA E?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 amFollowed by: 26 members
Thanked: 56 times

by mundasingh123 » Tue May 03, 2011 6:05 am
What does the author mean by rerouted offshore
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 amFollowed by: 13 members
Thanked: 47 times
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue May 03, 2011 6:11 am
offshore - far away from the coast where fishing doesnot happen
re-route - finding another way.

why did you ask this Munda?
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 amFollowed by: 26 members
Thanked: 56 times

by mundasingh123 » Tue May 03, 2011 6:21 am
HSPA wrote:offshore - far away from the coast where fishing doesnot happen
re-route - finding another way.

why did you ask this Munda?
i wanted to understand the impact of B on the conclusion and what effect would it have on the lobsters in the ocean .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:46 amFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 21 times

by GMATMadeEasy » Tue May 03, 2011 7:29 am
@singalong : you are right in identifying conclusion : proposal is pointless.

But author has IGNORED the fact that these infected lobsters that will not die of the disease -- as they die before anyways -- may harm the humans who eat them.So we need to go with the proposal.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 amFollowed by: 26 members
Thanked: 56 times

by mundasingh123 » Tue May 03, 2011 9:02 am
singalong wrote:Aren't we supposed to look at the conclusion specifically when we need to weaken an arguement?The conclusion states that "..the proposal is pointless...." The last sentence nowhere speaks about humans eating the lobsters.Then how is the OA E?
According to powerscore and other test prep companies , you must consider the information in the answer choices true in case of weaken questions
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:09 amFollowed by: 27 members
Location: Los Angeles
Thanked: 8 times

by LIL » Wed May 04, 2011 5:12 am
singalong wrote:Aren't we supposed to look at the conclusion specifically when we need to weaken an arguement?The conclusion states that "..the proposal is pointless...." The last sentence nowhere speaks about humans eating the lobsters.Then how is the OA E?
I think you have to assume the proposal was made by humans, for the benefit of humans. Hence the first part of the problem stating "lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans."
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:09 amFollowed by: 27 members
Location: Los Angeles
Thanked: 8 times

by LIL » Wed May 04, 2011 3:54 pm
mundasingh123 wrote:According to powerscore and other test prep companies , you must consider the information in the answer choices true in case of weaken questions
here is a better way to know if you should consider the information true or not:
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument.
instead of thinking "if i see a 'weaken the argument' question, i should consider the answers to be true," think "if the question tells me to consider the answers true" i should...follow the directions.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:42 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 1 times

by singalong » Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:41 am
@mundasingh123
thats a nice tip.

Lil...doesn't that depend on how the question is stated?I mean, for sure, do all weakening questions have "if true" in them?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:34 amFollowed by: 123 members
Location: India
Thanked: 310 times
GMAT Score:750

by cans » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:04 am
IMO E
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:26 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 5 times

by jainnikhil02 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:10 am
IMO E.
Nikhil K Jain
____________________

"Life is all about timing" Don't waste your and others time.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:13 am

by stoy4o » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:15 pm
Where is the flaw in my logic for picking C:

People eating lobsters who live in contaminated waters will develop a gill disease. Since lobsters breed in sewage waters (as much as they do in unpolluted waters) rerouted IS needed to reduce/eliminate gill disease.

I understand this is not direct logic that hurts the conclusion but if this (breeding 50/50 factor) is known and could be averted not doing so will weaken the main conclusion.

Thanks!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1