This one is a LSAT based CR.
- Attachments
-
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Rabies CR
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
mmslf75 wrote:pandeyvineet24 wrote:IMO B
pandeyji,
why B ?
A,D,E are out of scope.
C is again out because the argument talks about the confirmed cases and not the appearance of the symptoms.
Compared to 2 years ago, when it was 25%, the percentage of raccoons suffering from disease went up to 50% , but the number of confirmed cases have come down from 32 to 18. Most probably this happened because the number of raccoons have come down, which is what the statement B says, a large number of raccoons died two years ago. Also of the few ones that survived, the higher percentage of raccoons are still sufferring from the disease.
OA : B
Cheers Vineet!!
what abt sharks CR??
Cheers Vineet!!
what abt sharks CR??
Pandeyji,pandeyvineet24 wrote:mmslf75 wrote:pandeyvineet24 wrote:IMO B
pandeyji,
why B ?
A,D,E are out of scope.
C is again out because the argument talks about the confirmed cases and not the appearance of the symptoms.
Compared to 2 years ago, when it was 25%, the percentage of raccoons suffering from disease went up to 50% , but the number of confirmed cases have come down from 32 to 18. Most probably this happened because the number of raccoons have come down, which is what the statement B says, a large number of raccoons died two years ago. Also of the few ones that survived, the higher percentage of raccoons are still sufferring from the disease.
aah get the point !!
one thing noticed these proportion number concepts rest on similar type of reasoning right ??
You mean :
Today 2010
50% of 36 = 18
[/i]
2008
25% of 128 = 32
So even though perccentage increased , the value decreased to 18 as the " signifcant number of racoon succumbed "
