Answer is D

So, this question is somewhat annoying because it is effectively asking you to think through a double negative via the idea of which answer "doesn't cast doubt." In short, its really asking "which of these answers would corroborate the conclusion of the argument or at least not discredit it." The arguement is "all wildlife parks will be forced to end their shows featuring killer whales once their current killer whales are unable to perform." A,B, C, and D are all things that would allow for these wildlife parks to theoretically keep having shows featuring killer whales even when their current whales aren't viable. A (still being able to get them because the ban doesn't affect all areas), B (Canada allowing killer whale captures), C (more baby killer whales), D (Illegally obtaining whales despite the bans on capturing them). Only E doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion that shows will have to end with this current generation of whales as it really is a statement that doesn't relate directly to the wildlife parks at all and instead just talks about the method by which the whales are captured. The answer is E.

I chose A, because if they can hunt off the coast of Greenland, then this makes the conclusion weaker.

Why do we have to choose something that does not undermine the conclusion?

It says: which of these casts doubt on the conclusion. How is that different from undermine?

Oh, okay, I just saw the word EXCEPT.

Answer is E. It doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion that the hunting ban will cause wildlife parks to postponing their killer whale shows after the current one died.

This is an EXCEPT question. For this reason, E is the OA.

Regards

We are looking for a choice that does not cast any doubt on the conclusion. Most of the choices will cast doubt.

A. This certainly casts doubt on the conclusion, because plenty of killer whales can be hunted off the coast of Greenland.

B. This casts doubt, as the whales can be hunted near Canada.

C. This definitely casts doubt, as the shows can continue without any hunting at all. Parks can simply breed more killer whales to perform.

D. This choice casts doubt because it essentially states the the bans will not stop wildlife parks from hunting killer whales. They can still acquire whales even after hunting them becomes illegal.

E. This must be the answer. It really doesn't have anything at all to do with the conclusion. No matter how hunters hunt whales, if they are banned from doing so, then they won't be able to hunt them at all. Hence, wildlife parks will have to do without killer whales.

Post A Detailed Correct Solution For The Above Questions And Get A Kudos.
Question From Our New Project: Great Opportunity To Earn Kudos!!!

I think option E is not related to weakening the conclusion
It diverges from the main topic.
Thus OA is E

We need to find the option that does NOT weaken the conclusion that all wildlife parks will be forced to end their shows featuring killer whales once their current killer whales are unable to perform.

A-Shows us another hunting range. Weakens so incorrect.
B- One country is easing restrictions. Weakens so incorrect.
C- Shows another way to get whales. Weakens so incorrect.
D- Shows how trading can keep numbers up. Weakens so incorrect.
E- How to catch whales and in what dept is irrelevant. Doesn't weaken so is correct.

Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.