It has been discovered that a chemical compound present in a liquid sprayed by pinkback ants as a defense mechanism contains antiseptic properties very useful in the treatment of minor flesh wounds. The volume of the chemical stored in a pinkback's glands is so small that it took scientists more than a year to acquire a sufficient amount for research purposes. Clearly, it will be very expensive, if not impossible, to use the chemical in commercial applications since such applications require much greater amounts than those used during research.
The answer to which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the argument?
A What kind of commercial applications could benefit from the presence of such a chemical?
B Does the chemical have properties that would make it useful for the healing of ailments other than flesh wounds?
C When the chemical is drawn from the glands of a pinkback ant, how long does it take for the ant to reproduce the missing amount?
D What alternative sources of other chemicals used for the treatment of minor flesh wounds are there?
E Can the compound be synthetically produced without it losing any of its characteristics?
OA is e
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
It has been discovered that a chemical compound present in a
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorRO
- Moderator
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:29 pm
- Followed by:6 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Terry@ThePrincetonReview
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:26 am
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Followed by:1 members
The argument's conclusion is that it will be ... expensive ... to use the chemical in commercial applications.
The premises are that the volume of ... chemical stored in ... glands is very small; also that commercial applications ... require much greater amounts.
To evaluate the argument, as per the question's task, we need to find the answer choice that would provide information on whether the drawbacks described in the premises are indeed critical barriers to commercial applications.
Choice A is beyond the question's scope. The argument is concerned only with the feasibility and affordability of obtaining the compound for commercial applications. The actual applications envisioned are not part of this argument.
Choice B is beyond the question's scope for the same reason that choice A was. The particular applications are immaterial.
Choice C seems pertinent, since it poses another potential problem with biologically harvesting the compound from pinkback ants. But this is also out of scope because this wholly different potential problem -- the length of time for the ant to replace the withdrawn compound -- doesn't help to evaluate whether the problems presented in the argument are critical. Other problems are of no concern.
Choice D also seems pertinent, because it mentions other compounds that could be used instead of the difficult-to-harvest compound. However, that's not what the argument is about. The argument is about problems in obtaining this particular compound described as having antiseptic properties that are very useful. The argument is not interested in alternatives to the compound.
Choice E addresses the argument's conclusion by mentioning synthetic production of the compound of interest. The argument's conclusion is that it will be prohibitively expensive to use the chemical in commercial applications. This concern can be addressed by exploring the feasibility of synthetic production that preserves the compound's characteristics without the labor and expense of harvesting it from ants.
Terry Serres
---------------
The Princeton Review
Certified Instructor, Content Developer
The premises are that the volume of ... chemical stored in ... glands is very small; also that commercial applications ... require much greater amounts.
To evaluate the argument, as per the question's task, we need to find the answer choice that would provide information on whether the drawbacks described in the premises are indeed critical barriers to commercial applications.
Choice A is beyond the question's scope. The argument is concerned only with the feasibility and affordability of obtaining the compound for commercial applications. The actual applications envisioned are not part of this argument.
Choice B is beyond the question's scope for the same reason that choice A was. The particular applications are immaterial.
Choice C seems pertinent, since it poses another potential problem with biologically harvesting the compound from pinkback ants. But this is also out of scope because this wholly different potential problem -- the length of time for the ant to replace the withdrawn compound -- doesn't help to evaluate whether the problems presented in the argument are critical. Other problems are of no concern.
Choice D also seems pertinent, because it mentions other compounds that could be used instead of the difficult-to-harvest compound. However, that's not what the argument is about. The argument is about problems in obtaining this particular compound described as having antiseptic properties that are very useful. The argument is not interested in alternatives to the compound.
Choice E addresses the argument's conclusion by mentioning synthetic production of the compound of interest. The argument's conclusion is that it will be prohibitively expensive to use the chemical in commercial applications. This concern can be addressed by exploring the feasibility of synthetic production that preserves the compound's characteristics without the labor and expense of harvesting it from ants.
Terry Serres
---------------
The Princeton Review
Certified Instructor, Content Developer
-
Akrita@Jamboree
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:08 pm
This is an Evaluate/Assess question type. An 'Evaluate the Argument' question basically asks us the question 'what is missing in the argument before the argument can be deemed complete?'. In other words, we are looking for the missing premise to complete the conclusion. In an evaluate question, the options would be presented in a question format, and we are concerned with identifying the answers at either ends of the spectrum. For example, in a question beginning 'whether', the two applicable answers are 'Yes' and 'No'. Similarly, in a question beginning with 'When', we consider two extreme answer choices - say, 2 minutes OR 2 years. If one answer choice (or one end of the spectrum) strengthens the argument, the other end should weaken. Therefore, a good way to approach an 'Evaluate' question is to treat it solely as either a Strengthen or a Weaken question type, based on whichever your strong suit is.
Coming back to the question, let us dissect the argument into its premises and conclusion.
Premise 1: A liquid released by pinkback ants contains chemicals that can be used to treat minor flesh wounds
Premise 2: The liquid is stored in the ants' glands in very small quantities
Conclusion: It will be very expensive - i.e., take a long time - to collect sufficient quantities of this chemical for treatment of flesh wounds.
Let us approach this as a Weaken question, and say that it will not be very expensive to acquire sufficiently large quantities of this chemical to treat flesh wounds. We are looking for an option that, when answered either way, does this for us.
Option A - INCORRECT: We are not concerned with various commercial applications - only with treatment of flesh wounds. Irrelevant and out of scope
Option B - INCORRECT: Again, this is out of scope. Treatment other than flesh wounds is beyond the domain of the argument - we are only concerned with flesh wounds
Option C - INCORRECT: Irrespective of whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 years, the point is that the ants can store only a very small amount in their glands at a given time. So, it will still be expensive to collect the liquid in large enough quantities.
Option D - INCORRECT: Out of scope
Option E - CORRECT: This is what we are looking for - If the compound can be produced synthetically or artificially, then we can just obtain the chemical in small quantity from the ants' glands and produce large volumes of it relatively inexpensively. So, a 'Yes' answer to this question weakens the argument. Alternatively, if the chemical cannot be produced artificially, and the ants only store a small amount of the liquid chemical in their glands, then we have no choice but to gather the chemical naturally, which would take a lot of time and resources and be expensive. Hence a 'No' answer strengthens the argument.
Option E, therefore, is the best answer.
Please let me know if anything doesn't make sense.
Coming back to the question, let us dissect the argument into its premises and conclusion.
Premise 1: A liquid released by pinkback ants contains chemicals that can be used to treat minor flesh wounds
Premise 2: The liquid is stored in the ants' glands in very small quantities
Conclusion: It will be very expensive - i.e., take a long time - to collect sufficient quantities of this chemical for treatment of flesh wounds.
Let us approach this as a Weaken question, and say that it will not be very expensive to acquire sufficiently large quantities of this chemical to treat flesh wounds. We are looking for an option that, when answered either way, does this for us.
Option A - INCORRECT: We are not concerned with various commercial applications - only with treatment of flesh wounds. Irrelevant and out of scope
Option B - INCORRECT: Again, this is out of scope. Treatment other than flesh wounds is beyond the domain of the argument - we are only concerned with flesh wounds
Option C - INCORRECT: Irrespective of whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 years, the point is that the ants can store only a very small amount in their glands at a given time. So, it will still be expensive to collect the liquid in large enough quantities.
Option D - INCORRECT: Out of scope
Option E - CORRECT: This is what we are looking for - If the compound can be produced synthetically or artificially, then we can just obtain the chemical in small quantity from the ants' glands and produce large volumes of it relatively inexpensively. So, a 'Yes' answer to this question weakens the argument. Alternatively, if the chemical cannot be produced artificially, and the ants only store a small amount of the liquid chemical in their glands, then we have no choice but to gather the chemical naturally, which would take a lot of time and resources and be expensive. Hence a 'No' answer strengthens the argument.
Option E, therefore, is the best answer.
Please let me know if anything doesn't make sense.
