Weaken the conclusion : Tree Frogs

Sure!

IMO C

In CR questions, 2 choices will always leave you in doubt.

Remember:
1) Always paraphrase the argument and spot the evidence and the conclusion.
2) Rule out three answer choices.
3) When you're left with two choices, always go back to the conclusion and ask whether the answer choice somehow relates to it.
4) In weaken CR questions, you are not required to find an answer that denies the argument or that proves the conclusion false. You NEED to find information that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.

Lets work on this one now.

Evidence: 1. Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner.
2. Seeing those frogs, a new tape is designed that can be reused and is more adhesive.

Conclusion: If the frogs extinct five years ago this tape would not now be available. And this is more like a fear.

Look at the answer that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.
B,D and E can be instantly eliminated because they are out of the scope of the argument.

Now look at C and A (your main doubt).

A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction. -> How much adhesive they are and how do they differ from the lizards is something which is not related to the conclusion. They have produced a tape based on frogs channels, so out main focus should be on frogs, channels and the tape. ELIMANTE A.

C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes. -> Adds suspicion to the FEAR. This suggests that the tape was produced by seeing footpads of the preserved remains, not live frogs. Bingo! Thats what you were looking for.

Therefore, C.

*I have learnt all this from the experts of BeatTheGMAT.com and my teacher and I thank them all if they are reading this right now.

Thanks.

aman88 wrote:Sure!

IMO C

In CR questions, 2 choices will always leave you in doubt.

Remember:
1) Always paraphrase the argument and spot the evidence and the conclusion.
2) Rule out three answer choices.
3) When you're left with two choices, always go back to the conclusion and ask whether the answer choice somehow relates to it.
4) In weaken CR questions, you are not required to find an answer that denies the argument or that proves the conclusion false. You NEED to find information that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.

Lets work on this one now.

Evidence: 1. Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner.
2. Seeing those frogs, a new tape is designed that can be reused and is more adhesive.

Conclusion: If the frogs extinct five years ago this tape would not now be available. And this is more like a fear.

Look at the answer that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.
B,D and E can be instantly eliminated because they are out of the scope of the argument.

Now look at C and A (your main doubt).

A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction. -> How much adhesive they are and how do they differ from the lizards is something which is not related to the conclusion. They have produced a tape based on frogs channels, so out main focus should be on frogs, channels and the tape. ELIMANTE A.

C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes. -> Adds suspicion to the FEAR. This suggests that the tape was produced by seeing footpads of the preserved remains, not live frogs. Bingo! Thats what you were looking for.

Therefore, C.

*I have learnt all this from the experts of BeatTheGMAT.com and my teacher and I thank them all if they are reading this right now.

Thanks.

Great explanation.
However, this passage talks about extinction of Tree Frogs. Extinction means the species is wiped out from the face of the earth. This also means that there are no dead frogs to experiment with.
If that is the case, no ideas can be taken from foot of Tree Frogs. Perhaps, scientists would have to turn to some other species which has similar mechanism of sticking to trees. Due to this reason I felt that A might be a correct answer.

What I am thinking might be too far fetched, but I have expressed my concerns above.

sid128 wrote:

aman88 wrote:Sure!

IMO C

In CR questions, 2 choices will always leave you in doubt.

Remember:
1) Always paraphrase the argument and spot the evidence and the conclusion.
2) Rule out three answer choices.
3) When you're left with two choices, always go back to the conclusion and ask whether the answer choice somehow relates to it.
4) In weaken CR questions, you are not required to find an answer that denies the argument or that proves the conclusion false. You NEED to find information that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.

Lets work on this one now.

Evidence: 1. Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner.
2. Seeing those frogs, a new tape is designed that can be reused and is more adhesive.

Conclusion: If the frogs extinct five years ago this tape would not now be available. And this is more like a fear.

Look at the answer that adds a tinge of suspicion to either the premise or the conclusion.
B,D and E can be instantly eliminated because they are out of the scope of the argument.

Now look at C and A (your main doubt).

A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction. -> How much adhesive they are and how do they differ from the lizards is something which is not related to the conclusion. They have produced a tape based on frogs channels, so out main focus should be on frogs, channels and the tape. ELIMANTE A.

C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes. -> Adds suspicion to the FEAR. This suggests that the tape was produced by seeing footpads of the preserved remains, not live frogs. Bingo! Thats what you were looking for.

Therefore, C.

*I have learnt all this from the experts of BeatTheGMAT.com and my teacher and I thank them all if they are reading this right now.

Thanks.

Great explanation.
However, this passage talks about extinction of Tree Frogs. Extinction means the species is wiped out from the face of the earth. This also means that there are no dead frogs to experiment with.
If that is the case, no ideas can be taken from foot of Tree Frogs. Perhaps, scientists would have to turn to some other species which has similar mechanism of sticking to trees. Due to this reason I felt that A might be a correct answer.

What I am thinking might be too far fetched, but I have expressed my concerns above.

I won't deny your reasoning, it's fine, but see what answer you'll get if I ask you to find the conclusion of what choice A is saying.

A. The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction.

Choice A is merely comparing the adhesiveness of frog's channels to certain lizards's channels. We are not looking for the degree if adhesiveness or we are not arguing whether frogs have more adhesiveness or lizards have more or vice-versa. The underlined part is like a decoy that set us thinking in an opposite direction. That's why we ruled out A.

Thanks.

@aman88 has identified the evidence and conclusion correctly. I want to add a point to his explanation:

The stimulus says "If tree frogs had become extinct five years ago, as was feared at the time, this tape would not now be available."

So, it is author is assuming that "just because the frogs are not extinct, this tape is now available for us." Considering this assumption, we just need to show something that doubts this assumption. Option C does exactly the same; it shows that "there is no need of any living frog for discovering the tape".

Nice explanation by Aman88!

Sid128 -

Your definition of "extinct" goes a bit too far. "Extinct" means that there are no living animals of that species. There are tasmanian tigers in museums and Carolina parakeets and other extinct animals. So extinct does not mean that there are no dead examples. Actually they have uncovered some mammoths frozen in Russia!! Those have been extinct for thousands of years...

Now, I am not sure if this question turns on "extinct" and if this is may be an unfamiliar word. That is the beauty of the new Veritas question bank. We can tell from the results if a question is unfair and we have already adjusted several questions. If the results from this one seem to be off a bit then we will tree it with a different word in there.

Thanks for using the question bank and for posting the link!