BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

TOUGH KAPLAN CR QUESTION

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:01 am

TOUGH KAPLAN CR QUESTION

by varun007 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:40 am
A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats that were given high doses of a new artificial sweetener developed cancer while all the others remained healthy, the sweetener is not carcinogenic for human beings and ought to be approved for human consumption.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the chemical company’s claim?
(A) Chemicals that are carcinogenic for rats are usually also carcinogenic for other animals, such as guinea pigs, used in experiments.
(B) The spontaneous incidence of cancer in this particular strain of rat is approximately one in 540.
(C) Tests conducted on a certain strain of mouse show that, of 500 mice given a dose of sweetener similar to that given the rats, 53 developed cancer.
(D) Certain chemicals that are carcinogenic for human beings have been shown not to be carcinogenic for rats.
(E) The average lifespan of the strain of rat used in the experiment is 2 years; the chemical company terminated the experiment when the rats were 13 months old.

OA IS B . CONFUSED . PLS CAN SOEBODY EXPLIAN IN DETAIL
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:56 am
Thanked: 7 times

by sethids » Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:12 am
The suitable answer choice would be the one which supports that the sweetner is safe for human consumption.
Because it has been tested on rats, if there is evidence that it is largely safe for rats, it should be more or less safe for other living species as well.

Choice B mentions that the rat species used in the experiment has a cancer incidence of 1 in 540 which is about 0.2% and hence is largely safe. It matches wich the premise in the question that only 1 of 520 rats developed cancer. So it was not by chance.

Looking at the other options:
A. Irrelevant.
C. Shows that 10% of rats developed cancer. It weakens the claim.
D. Doesn't support the claim.
E. Irrelevant.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:08 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by gmatrant » Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:12 am
but sethids..
where is the relation between the rats and the human beings... the claim is that the sweetner will not cause cancer to human beings. And the author is trying to prove that by using rats as a reference. But there should be a statement that if it is good for the rats it is good for the human beings too..

pls comment...
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:56 am
Thanked: 7 times

by sethids » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:54 pm
The relation is the very nature of scientific experiments.
Any new medicine etc. are tested on laboratory animals first and then if they produce desired (or safe) results in those experiments then those are made available for human consumption.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:08 am
Thanked: 2 times

by James_83 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:16 pm
sethids Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The suitable answer choice would be the one which supports that the sweetner is safe for human consumption.
Because it has been tested on rats, if there is evidence that it is largely safe for rats, it should be more or less safe for other living species as well.

Choice B mentions that the rat species used in the experiment has a cancer incidence of 1 in 540 which is about 0.2% and hence is largely safe. It matches wich the premise in the question that only 1 of 520 rats developed cancer. So it was not by chance.

Looking at the other options:
A. Irrelevant.
C. Shows that 10% of rats developed cancer. It weakens the claim.
D. Doesn't support the claim.
E. Irrelevant
hi sethids,
i am still not convinced with option B.I think it is actually weakning the argument.When a particular species has already chances of developing cancer is 0.2%, then how could a company claims the results of 1:520 on that species. It would be more appropriate if the chances would be quite high and the eating of sweetner does not provoke any cancer.

Please comment if there is a gap in my understanding of the options.I have opted for C which actually compares the product with the existing sweetner.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:56 am
Thanked: 7 times

by sethids » Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:18 am
Ok... Lets try to look at it this way...

The company claims that only one of 520 rats developed cancer when the new sweetner was tested on the rat species.

Now the choice B mentions that the species has a spontaneous cancer incidence rate of 1 in 540.
In this situation, even if the sweetner was not given to those rats, 1 in 540 has a chance of developing cancer.
According to the information provided, it is very much likely that it is the tendency of the rat species that led to the development of cancer and has nothing to do with the sweetner under test.

Hope that helps.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:08 am
Thanked: 2 times

by James_83 » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:22 pm
ohh....i got it...actually,i was taking this option into other way..

Thanks for explaination. :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by NSNguyen » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:18 am
IMO: B
of all, only B confirm the result while others irrelevant or out of scope.
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 2:18 am
In my opinion B is the most logical one.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1