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

Redeem

Inference CR. Try it! :)

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:3 members

Inference CR. Try it! :)

by aman88 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:52 am
A new species of fish has just been discovered living in great numbers in the waters off Papua New Guinea. The fish exhibits some characteristics belonging to sharks, such as a cartilaginous skeleton. However, the fish also exhibits characteristics belonging to eels, such as a long, snake-like body. Because of the habitat where it was found and its obviously eel-like body, almost all scientists believe that the fish is an eel. But the cartilaginous skeleton puzzles them, since no known eel possesses one. So scientists are still unsure as to the fish's precise classification, but they agreed immediately that the most logical classification would be as either a shark or an eel.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following?

A. To be placed into a certain classification, a fish must possess all the characteristics of that classification.
B. Physical characteristics, such as skeletons, are scientists' primary means of classifying new species.
C. Some fish with cartilaginous skeletons are not sharks.
D. The waters off Papua New Guinea are generally hospitable to eels.
E. A fish cannot be both a shark and an eel.

Thanks.
Last edited by aman88 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:15 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by sid128 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:40 am
IMO correct choice should be E.
A) There can be other characteristics that are not mentioned in the passage. 'All' is too strong word to be used : Discarded.
B)Could be true: Contender
C)There is no evidence/implication in the passage that some fish with cartilaginous skeletons are not sharks: Discarded
D)Not necessarily correct: Discarded.
E)Passage implies that a fish can not both be a shark and an eel. This is mentioned in last line of passage "either a shark or an eel" : Contender.

Comparing our two contenders B and E, E is more explicitly mentioned in passage.
Hence IMO correct answer is E
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:6 members

by The Iceman » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:57 am
Aman, option D looks the only infered choice here. D should be the answer.

The evidence is "Because of the habitat where it was found"

@sid128: Option E cannot be conclusively deduced because we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fish cannot be both a shark and an eel. The fish could be an eel, a shark, or may be a hybrid of both.

@Aman: Please change the question type to an inference or a conclusion question. It is not a strengthening question, which always requires a new information to support the claim made in the argument itself.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:35 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by Sk1ver » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:30 am
aman88 wrote:A new species of fish has just been discovered living in great numbers in the waters off Papua New Guinea. The fish exhibits some characteristics belonging to sharks, such as a cartilaginous skeleton. However, the fish also exhibits characteristics belonging to eels, such as a long, snake-like body. Because of the habitat where it was found and its obviously eel-like body, almost all scientists believe that the fish is an eel. But the cartilaginous skeleton puzzles them, since no known eel possesses one. So scientists are still unsure as to the fish's precise classification, but they agreed immediately that the most logical classification would be as either a shark or an eel.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following?

A. To be placed into a certain classification, a fish must possess all the characteristics of that classification.
B. Physical characteristics, such as skeletons, are scientists' primary means of classifying new species.
C. Some fish with cartilaginous skeletons are not sharks.
D. The waters off Papua New Guinea are generally hospitable to eels.
E. A fish cannot be both a shark and an eel.

Thanks.
A good one!

I choose B.. It is stated that scientists are puzzled, due to the fact that new species have two physiscal characteristics, each one attributable to different fish classifications... If scientists classified fish species using other methods, they wouldn't have such problems.... D sounds good, but it is not the main idea of the stem, is only a supplementary premise, so i think B is better.

OA?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:6 members

by The Iceman » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:43 am
Sk1ver wrote:A good one!

I choose B.. It is stated that scientists are puzzled, due to the fact that new species have two physiscal characteristics, each one attributable to different fish classifications... If scientists classified fish species using other methods, they wouldn't have such problems.... D sounds good, but it is not the main idea of the stem, is only a supplementary premise, so i think B is better.

OA?
B goes extreme by using "primary means of classifying". It could well be that in classifying new species the importance of habitat as a factor is the same as the physical characteristics. It may also be the case that Habitat>Physical characteristics. Also, there could all together be different dominating factors such as food habbits, etc.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:15 am
Thanked: 1 times

by viveksingh222 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:11 am
The Iceman wrote:Aman, option D looks the only infered choice here. D should be the answer.

The evidence is "Because of the habitat where it was found"

@sid128: Option E cannot be conclusively deduced because we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fish cannot be both a shark and an eel. The fish could be an eel, a shark, or may be a hybrid of both.

@Aman: Please change the question type to an inference or a conclusion question. It is not a strengthening question, which always requires a new information to support the claim made in the argument itself.
Yes this is not strengthening question...first I took answer as E after rereading the question
I agree with D as answer.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:3 members

by aman88 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:52 am
Sorry guys. Post edited.
OA D

Conclusion: This is an inference question that asks us to draw a conclusion from the information provided. What must also be true given the stimulus?

Evidence: Since we need to draw our own conclusion, we can use all facts provided in the argument as evidence.

The first sentence states that the new fish was discovered off the waters of Papua New Guinea. In addition, the sentence 4 states that the new fish shares its habitat with the eel. In combination, these two sentences indicate that eels also live in the waters off Papua New Guinea. So this region must be hospitable to eels, as stated in D.

(A) doesn't follow from the information given. The last sentence implies that the new fish could be classified as a shark even though it does not have a cartilaginous skeleton Also, it is extreme in its use of the word all. With (B), the importance of physical characteristics relative to other characteristics is not discussed. With (C), if the new fish were to be classified as an eel, then we could conclude that at least one fish with a cartilaginous skeleton is not a shark. The stimulus, however, never says this. Furthermore, we aren't told anything about other fish classifications. And with (E), the last sentence states that the new fish will probably be classified as either a shark or an eel, but suggests nothing about an animal being both. Though this choice may seem true, we don't know for certain.

Thanks.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1