Critical Reasoning

Continuous indoor fluorescent light benefits the health of hamsters with inherited heart disease. A group of them exposed to continuous fluorescent light survived twenty-five percent longer than a similar group exposed instead to equal periods of indoor fluorescent light and of darkness.

The method of the research described above is most likely to be applicable in addressing which of the following questions?

(A) Can industrial workers who need to see their work do so better by sunlight or by fluorescent light?

(B) Can hospital lighting be improved to promote the recovery of patients?

(C) How do deep-sea fish survive in total darkness?

(D) What are the inherited illnesses to which hamsters are subject?

(E) Are there plants that require specific periods of darkness in order to bloom?


[spoiler]OA IS B. What's wrong with c or e? [/spoiler]

Hey adi_800,

Consider the essentials of the research described in the prompt:

1. Exposure to fluorescent light is compared to exposure to both fluorescent light and darkness.
2. This is done to study hamsters' survival from inherited heart disease.

The main issue is studying how a specific type of light affects recovery from sickness.

The main problem with C is that we're not interested in how an animal survives in darkness; we're interested in recovery from illness. Notice that this answer choice deals with basic, everyday survival, not the specific situation of illness. It also deals with darkness, whereas we're interested in the effects of light.

E is tempting, but again, we're not interested in darkness, and we're not interested in survival requirements. We're interested in increasing survival in relation to having a disease.

Only B addresses the issue of how specific lighting might increase recovery from sickness.

I can see how B is the best answer, but I think its reasoning is flawed. B requires the additional assumption that humans would react similar to hamsters to the lighting. This is something not indicated in the passage.

Hey sk818020,

Answer choice B doesn't say that humans would react similarly. In fact, the study involved in Answer Choice B is completely different from the hamster study in terms of the subjects and the lighting considerations.

The questions asks "The method of the research described above is most likely to be applicable in addressing which of the following questions?"

It's the METHOD we're interested in, not the similarities between humans and hamsters. Both the study in the prompt and the study in Answer B involve the same method of research (i.e. studying the effects of a particular kind of lighting on recovery from illness).

Now, if the author made a conclusion saying that the exact lighting that helped hamsters would also help humans, then the assumption you mentioned would apply, and the reasoning would be flawed.

Make sense?

Yes it does, Rich. Thanks for taking the time!

Jared

Can some one confirm the source of question and OA. I am referring to same question in one of GMAT prep sets with OA as E.