Rocky Mountains

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

Rocky Mountains

by nileshdalvi » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:37 pm
Thirty years ago, deer and elk in selected parts of
the Rocky Mountains were first discovered with a
condition known as wasting disease. In 1970, two
percent of the deer and elk killed by hunters were
diagnosed with the disease. In 1995, that percentage
had grown to six percent. This increase in the incidence
of the disease proves that wasting disease has
become much more prevalent in the last twenty-five
years.
If true, which one of the following selections most
seriously weakens the author's conclusion?
(A) Wasting disease has not been discovered in
domestic livestock or in moose or bighorn
sheep, which are also found in significant
numbers in the Rocky Mountains.
(B) Wasting disease tends to make deer and elk
lethargic, making them more easily killed by
hunters.
(C) Since it was first reported, wasting disease
has occasionally been diagnosed in deer
outside the Rocky Mountains.
(D) Hunters have grown more reluctant to
cooperate with the authorities in reporting
their deer and elk harvest, because if wasting
disease is diagnosed in their harvest, the meat
will be destroyed.
(E) It is very difficult to diagnose wasting disease
more than twenty-four hours after death, so
many cases of the disease have gone
undiagnosed
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:02 am

by loving.achin » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:55 pm
IMO : D

We have to show that the increase in incidence of disease does not prove that wasting disease has become more prevalent.
i.e. The number of disease would be same. it is just that the % is increased, which is possible if hunters do not report the harvest, the % can increase (despite the numbers being same).

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 am
Thanked: 19 times

by krishnasty » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:02 am
IMO, B just by POE. If anyone has a better explaination, please post. Below are my reasons
nileshdalvi wrote:Thirty years ago, deer and elk in selected parts of
the Rocky Mountains were first discovered with a
condition known as wasting disease. In 1970, two
percent of the deer and elk killed by hunters were
diagnosed with the disease. In 1995, that percentage
had grown to six percent. This increase in the incidence
of the disease proves that wasting disease has
become much more prevalent in the last twenty-five
years.
If true, which one of the following selections most
seriously weakens the author's conclusion?
(A) Wasting disease has not been discovered in
domestic livestock or in moose or bighorn
sheep, which are also found in significant
numbers in the Rocky Mountains. - irrelevant
(B) Wasting disease tends to make deer and elk
lethargic, making them more easily killed by
hunters. - correct
(C) Since it was first reported, wasting disease
has occasionally been diagnosed in deer
outside the Rocky Mountains. - irrelevant
(D) Hunters have grown more reluctant to
cooperate with the authorities in reporting
their deer and elk harvest, because if wasting
disease is diagnosed in their harvest, the meat
will be destroyed. - it strengthens the argument.The current actual number can rise the perccent. Incorrect
(E) It is very difficult to diagnose wasting disease
more than twenty-four hours after death, so
many cases of the disease have gone
undiagnosed - it strengthens the argument.The current actual number can rise the perccent. Incorrect
---------------------------------------
Appreciation in thanks please!!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by nileshdalvi » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:50 am
Any explanation to B apart from PoE. I too selected B which is indeed correct, but could not find an convincing answer as to why it is the correct answer. I too arrived at it using PoE.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 am
Thanked: 19 times

by krishnasty » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:07 am
nileshdalvi wrote:Any explanation to B apart from PoE. I too selected B which is indeed correct, but could not find an convincing answer as to why it is the correct answer. I too arrived at it using PoE.
I guess this is the hard/tricky one where ur POE skills are verified ;)
---------------------------------------
Appreciation in thanks please!!

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:02 am

by loving.achin » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:15 am
I could try to explain B, but i am still not getting why D is wrong (I am surely missing something because it looked a strong contender to me).

We have to prove that the numbers are not rising. If the wasting disease makes them more lethargic, then they will be more easily killed by hunters. hence, despite the disease count being the same, the numbers will be overrepresented in hunters sample. [/u][/i]

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:36 am
I'll give explaining B a try.
I hope we understand that A and C are not really weakening/strengthening the argument
The Choice that we have to make is between B,D and E.
Since the quantity of disease that is prevalent in deers/elk etc is calculated only by those reported by hunters who hunt them, and the numbers which are reported have increased.One way to weaken this is to think that the numbers might have increased because now more of those deers/elk suffering from the disease are killed than earlier.Hence the statistics that we are using to arrive at the conclusion are not representative of the original situation. i.e we cannot say anything about the original prevalence of the wasting disease by looking at such a restricted data set.
hence
B which says that such deers/elk suffering from wasting disease are more likely to be killed than those which are not brings this point into effect.Thus its just that hunters are able to kill more of infected deers/elk than earlier and this is the reason that the number of hunted animals has increased from 2->6 %.

D -> This on the contrary strengthens the argument implying that more of the disease ridden deers are killed than reported.Hence the number 6% should be even more.Hence this goes against what we want to prove.
E-> Same as D above.This strenghtens the argument.

lemme know where I am missing something.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by nileshdalvi » Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:58 am
@dhonu121 and loving.achin: My objection with B " Wasting disease tends to make deer and elk
lethargic, making them more easily killed by hunters" was that the answer choice does not mention that the disease has recently made the deers and elks more lethargic. The deers and elks would be more lethargic even when the percentage was two and nowhere is it mentioned that the hunting skills have improved over the period or anything like that. The disease was present when it was 2% and when it was 6% as well, so there is no point in saying that deers and elks have started becoming more lethargic now then when it was 2%.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:33 am
Nilesh, here other than B none of them is weakening the argument. And in some cases, as in B here, we have to make this basic assumption that hunters are now able to hunt more lethargic deers than earlier.
There is otherwise no way of weakening the argument.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by nileshdalvi » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:34 am
Yes dhonu121, I agree that none of the other answer choices weaken the argument. Just wanted to understand as to whether there is any way other than the assumption you mentioned to ensure that the answer choice truly weakens the argument. The OE also makes this assumption but I am afraid in some of the other questions, you cannot make such an assumption. However, no other answer choice weakening this argument has actually made the choice simpler. But it would have been a different case, if there was another strong contender for weakening.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:47 am
You are right Nilesh.Elimination has made chosing this choice above easier.But from what I have learned regarding weaking questions is that
1.They are better if they bring some data that is out of scope.
2.They may involve some real life/common sense assumption.
This mostly helps.
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:24 pm
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by 1947 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:18 pm
good question loving.achin explains correctly why is B correct .

How much time did it take for u guys to solve this ?
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button. Thanks

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:59 am
Let me jump in here (perhaps because before my GMAT-teaching career I worked for the U.S. National Park Service -- No I was not in charge of illnesses in elk and deer! I was an environmental law consultant)

Let's talk about D first. D goes the wrong direction. We basically want to say that the number of animals shot that do have the wasting disease is OVERREPRESENTED. D would indicate that these cases are in fact UNDER REPORTED. So if we have 100 cases reported there might be 500 cases actually.

Choice B is the correct answer based on the wording of the conclusion. "This increase in the incidence of the disease proves that wasting disease has become much more prevalent in the last twenty-five years."

I think "much" more prevalent is the key to getting this right on the GMAT. Is it really MUCH more prevalent if it is still far less than 6% (given that these animals are easier to kill)? That I believe is the spirit of this question.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by nileshdalvi » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:23 am
@David: Talking about B, my point was that the likelihood of the animals being easy target would be as good in 1970 as in 1995. It is nowhere mentioned that the animals have become an easy target after 25 years or hunting skills are better. With this argument, I do not see B as the correct answer but can be considered the best answer based on its closeness (assuming that the easy target part is for 1995) whereas the other answer choices are nowhere near.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:41 am
You have a good point. Presumably they were also easier to hunt in 1970.

My point was the wording of the conclusion. "Much more prevalent" From 2 % to 6% is a solid increase, but when you take B into account we realize that it is still much less than 6% of the population and that does not feel like "much more prevalent."

Not a perfect question, could use maybe a small edit along the lines of what you are saying. I just think that the author of the question relied on "much more prevalent" to make a weaker conclusion.

Either way, what you say is exactly correct nileshdalvi. Process of elimination yields B; but B is not a perfect answer.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course