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 →

Biologists: Weakening

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pmFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 5 times
by turbo jet » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:45 am
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.

[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 104 times

by scoobydooby » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:44 am
conclusion: dioxin is unlikely to be the cause of change in hormone concentration in fish
to weaken we must show that dioxin is likely to be the cause

A. out of scope
B. out of scope

C. correct. dioxin is likely to be the cause as normal currents cause dioxin to reach downstream in a few hours

D. out of scope. physiological changes due to change in hormone concentration never discussed

E. doesnt weaken
Last edited by scoobydooby on Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 25 times

by aj5105 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:37 am
[spoiler](C)[/spoiler]
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 5 times

by vinaynp » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:53 am
scoobydooby wrote:conclusion: dioxin is unlikely to be the cause of change in hormone concentration in fish
to weaken we must show that dioxin is likely to be the cause

A. out of scope
B. out of scope

C. correct. dioxin is likely to be the cause as normal currents cause dioxin to reach downstream in a few hours

D. out of scope. physiological changes due to change in hormone concentration never discussed

E. doesnt weaken
Can you throw some more light? I was between C) and D). Am unable to decide why C)?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 25 times

by aj5105 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:06 am
(D) mentions about some fish. I guess this is one of the traps GMAT uses a lot of times.

If (C) were to be true, all fish would be affected.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 5 times

by vinaynp » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:11 am
I understand the some part.

However, just because "Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours" doesn't mean that it is cause.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 25 times

by aj5105 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:18 am
The currents carry dioxin downstream(as per C) and the fish are there downstream (as per argument)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:30 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 15 times

by schumi_gmat » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:35 am
scoobydooby wrote:conclusion: dioxin is unlikely to be the cause of change in hormone concentration in fish
to weaken we must show that dioxin is likely to be the cause

A. out of scope
B. out of scope

C. correct. dioxin is likely to be the cause as normal currents cause dioxin to reach downstream in a few hours

D. out of scope. physiological changes due to change in hormone concentration never discussed

E. doesnt weaken
Good Question turbojet.

I think D is strengthening the argument by eliminating the alternate cause
Any thoughts?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 5 times

by vinaynp » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:50 am
schumi_gmat wrote:
scoobydooby wrote:conclusion: dioxin is unlikely to be the cause of change in hormone concentration in fish
to weaken we must show that dioxin is likely to be the cause

A. out of scope
B. out of scope

C. correct. dioxin is likely to be the cause as normal currents cause dioxin to reach downstream in a few hours

D. out of scope. physiological changes due to change in hormone concentration never discussed

E. doesnt weaken
Good Question turbojet.

I think D is strengthening the argument by eliminating the alternate cause
Any thoughts?
I agree too :-(
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 104 times

by scoobydooby » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:28 am
hey schumi and vinaynp,
the conclusion is : dioxin not likey to cause change in hormone concentration in fish.

D says some fish did not recover from some effect of the hormone concentration. it talks of the result of the change in hormone concentration, not the cause of change in hormone concentration.
we need something that would affect the conclusion. D doesnt affect it.

C comes closest of all the choices- says the dioxins released daily are carried by normal currents downstream where fish are found. it makes dioxins 'likely' (not certainly) to cause change in hormone concentration
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: fssf
Thanked: 17 times

by krazy800 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:31 pm
The stimulus is talking about the fish immediately downstream of the paper mills. The answer choice C says the 'far down stream'. wouldn't this strengthen the conclusion? can any one explain?
Aiming High
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pmFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 5 times

by turbo jet » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:37 am
First of all spot the conclusion and the premise

Conclusion: Dioxin is not the cause for reproductive abnormalities in fish

Stated Central Premise: Even if hormones change, the fish are able to restore them quickly

Logic in the argument: X (Dioxin) leads to Y(Change in hormones) leads to Z (reproductive abnormalities)

Can you spot the flaw in author's logic here?
The premise of the author is assuming that X has led to Y. The author is thereby defending Y and saying that Z cannot occur.

Now try to find an answer choice that fixes the author's logical flaw.
We can do this if we can find an answer choice wherein X does not lead to Z i.e. Dioxin does not lead to reproductive abnormalities in fish

Careful: The trick words in this qs are upstream and far upstream

Answer C tells us there is no dioxin upstream. So fish cannot be affected by dioxin. (Note dioxin decomposes slowly) Hence fish upstream have reproductive abnormalities due to some other cause

Tip: In weakening qs, if one cause is given to prove a conclusion, try to find the possibility of another cause that can also prove the conclusion.Thus, you can weaken the argument by finding more than 1 cause for a conclusion

Elimination Reasons:

A: Is supporting the central premise

B: Irrelevant/ Out of scope (We are concerned only with dioxin, reproductive abnormality and fishes upstream)

D: Out of scope. ( We do not know whether physiological changes occurred due to hormone imbalances)Also it talks of Y and Z relationship which the author is anyways talking about. Nothing new.

E: This looks to be a preferred choice. However this also talks about Y and Z relationship. However the focus of the conclusion is on dioxin and repr abnormalities


Hope this helps clear some doubts!!!
Cheers!!
Turbo Jet








:D
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:730

by mikeCoolBoy » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:59 am
krazy800 wrote:The stimulus is talking about the fish immediately downstream of the paper mills. The answer choice C says the 'far down stream'. wouldn't this strengthen the conclusion? can any one explain?
I think the same, C strengthens the conclusion eliminating the possibility that dioxin be the cause. I'm sure I'm missing something here
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 8:01 pm
It seems to me that the right answer is C
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1