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

Redeem

energy to move uphill

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:08 am
Thanked: 2 times

energy to move uphill

by daretodream » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:50 pm
The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, like squirrel, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the explanation above depends?
(A) The amount of energy needed to move uphill is no greater for large animals that it is for small animals.
(B) Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.
(C) The ratio of surface area to body weight is smaller in large animals than it is in small animals.
(D) There is little variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.
(E) The amount of energy needed to run at a given speed is proportional to the surface area of the running animal.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:04 am
More looks to me as a quantitative problem than a reasoning one.

P1. Move uphill Energy(MUE) proportional to Body weight(BW)
P2. Energy Output Available(EOA) proportional to Surface Area(SA)

CCLN So small animals run up the tree as fast as they do on the level ground And large animals slow down when moving up

This means, the Energy output per Energy Expense is high in small animals than it is in the Larger ones

And because the Energy Output is proportional to the Surface area and the Energy Expense is proportional to the Body weight, the Surface Area per Body Weight is more for small animals than it is for larger ones.

C precisely puts it and is my answer.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:56 am
daretodream wrote:The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, like squirrel, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the explanation above depends?
(A) The amount of energy needed to move uphill is no greater for large animals that it is for small animals.
this is opposite and hence counter the argument[spoiler]

(B)[/spoiler] Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.
scope shift type a/c: it's not about the speed of large animals to small animals, it's about speed of each in uphill in compared with each' speed in flat ground

(C) The ratio of surface area to body weight is smaller in large animals than it is in small animals.
correct:Because such ratio of large animals is not equal to that of small animals, large animals can;t remain its speed when moving uphill as can small animals when moving uphill

(D) There is little variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.
does not effects the conclusion

(E) The amount of energy needed to run at a given speed is proportional to the surface area of the running animal.
irrelevant

B
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Chandigarh, INDIA

by onedayi'll » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:43 am
+ 1 for C..

I'm confused between B & C, but opted for C
Gym/GMAT/Girl -- Be Serious
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:07 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by mmon » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:38 pm
C sounds better than others.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm
Location: Indy
Thanked: 3 times

by amazonviper » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:32 pm
C it is. B is what the argument states/concludes and hence I do not see it as an assumption.
__________________________________

Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1