I think it is not abt humans contracting gill disease, its about , lobsters living long. ( they die soon when they contract gill disease and this as a food is not available for humans.)
eaten by humans .. is perhaps a trap
The correct option has to determine that the proposal to route the sewage water away is not pointless.
Now B says that Lobsters live longer in open spaces than the harbor. Why would that be? One reason is - because lobsters are caught and killed (for eating) before the gill disease kills them. But we do not know that all lobsters die soon because they are killed. Some of them must be dying of some other factor - which brings forward the second reason - the Gill Disease.
So B will make the point worthwhile if the author was concerned about protecting lobsters.
But if it were true that humans eating lobsters with Gill disease were falling ill - it will "most seriously weaken" the argument. E brings that out and hence wins.
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 ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases
In weaken and strength questions .. any infirmation outside the arguement should also be considered.
Only in support ( options most supported by passage, questions ) .. any option having information outside the passage is wrong.
In weaken and strength questions .. any infirmation outside the arguement should also be considered.
Only in support ( options most supported by passage, questions ) .. any option having information outside the passage is wrong.
Why can't the ans for the above q be option 2)Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors
The author main contention is tht lobsters won't live a long life for that sewage disposal.But this statement contradicts the above theory.
-Deepak.
Why can't the ans for the above q be option 2)Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors
The author main contention is tht lobsters won't live a long life for that sewage disposal.But this statement contradicts the above theory.
-Deepak.
I think B is out of scope. Industrial harbor is nowhere mentioned in the argument, ditto about open ocean. How does sewage rerouting turn a industrial harbor into open ocean? Doesn't make sense to me.
whereas E gives another reason to clear out the harbor, i.e. proposal is not pointless, because if steps are not taken to prevent lobsters from getting contracted, humans will get contracted thru' them.
E wins.
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 ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases
nuttyvarun SaysTry and stick to the passage Mr.Philanthropist.. I believe the passage doesnt mention the agenda u r trying to adress
I have explained my reasoning, you can explain yours. My logic could be wrong, you have to give your justification for your choice. You guys should help me the trick to remove ambiguities in CR. I always get boiled down to 2 options. Like in this question i was confused between C & D. So what is the trick guys.
Hey Varun,
Thanks for the nice titleI have explained my reasoning, you can explain yours. My logic could be wrong, you have to give your justification for your choice.
Thx.
Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don't trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won't buy this milk.
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) I'm buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.ďźˆC
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
plzz post ur explanations as well
Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I dont trust Jerrold Jersey, so I wont buy this milk.
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) Im buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.（C）
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
plzz post ur explanations as well
The correct option has to determine that the proposal to route the sewage water away is not pointless.
Now B says that Lobsters live longer in open spaces than the harbor. Why would that be? One reason is - because lobsters are caught and killed (for eating) before the gill disease kills them. But we do not know that all lobsters die soon because they are killed. Some of them must be dying of some other factor - which brings forward the second reason - the Gill Disease.
So B will make the point worthwhile if the author was concerned about protecting lobsters.
But if it were true that humans eating lobsters with Gill disease were falling ill - it will "most seriously weaken" the argument. E brings that out and hence wins.
Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I dont trust Jerrold Jersey, so I wont buy this milk.
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) Im buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.ďźˆC
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
plzz post ur explanations as well
would u explain why C more elaborately.......answer is correct but i did not understand the reasoning.
Argument:
The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Counter Argument:
But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Reasoning Behind First Argument:
The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
= Research/Background check is faulty BCOZ product is worthless/useless.
i.e. Product quality can be directly linked with the studies/research/quality check done on the same and subesequently to the value of the product... which means effective (picked up this word from argument by Dr.B) products are BETTER performers than ineffective products.
My choice is option C..
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
Other options:
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
-- Passage doesnt mention anything related to this context.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I dont trust Jerrold Jersey, so I wont buy this milk.
-- Close.. but not correct. Dr.A doesnt say that the he doesnt trust reaserchers or anything.. this is incorrect.
(D) Im buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.ďźˆC
-- Recommendations doesnt relate to the reasoning provided by Dr.A. This doesnt fit in the answer either.
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
-- This is direct relation as well.. I found this close one as well. But I dont have good reason to accept it either.
whats the correct one plz..??.. :)
ashishkd Saysans is correct ....would u explain me more elaborately why ans C is correct.
Argument:
The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Counter Argument:
But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Reasoning Behind First Argument:
The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
= Research/Background check is faulty BCOZ product is worthless/useless.
i.e. Product quality can be directly linked with the studies/research/quality check done on the same and subesequently to the value of the product... which means effective (picked up this word from argument by Dr.B) products are BETTER performers than ineffective products.
My choice is option C..
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
Other options:
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
-- Passage doesnt mention anything related to this context.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I dont trust Jerrold Jersey, so I wont buy this milk.
-- Close.. but not correct. Dr.A doesnt say that the he doesnt trust reaserchers or anything.. this is incorrect.
(D) Im buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.ďźˆC
-- Recommendations doesnt relate to the reasoning provided by Dr.A. This doesnt fit in the answer either.
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
-- This is direct relation as well.. I found this close one as well. But I dont have good reason to accept it either.
whats the correct one plz..??.. :)