Critical Reasoning

In 1960's studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks
among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, it was not such attacks that increased significantly, but rather instances of "coping" behavior, such as submissive gestures,avoidance of dominant individuals, and huddling with relatives. Therefore the evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. The Rhesus monkey is the species of monkey that is most prone to fighting.
B. Coping behavior was adopted by crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them.
C. All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys
living in uncrowded conditions.
D. Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in significantly more
attacks than the other monkeys were.
E. Some of the Rhesus monkeys in the experiments were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances.

[spoiler]OA:B[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've chosen C), i've considered that if coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys even in uncrowded condition than the fact that coping behavior was founded in crowded conditions is not representative to base the conclusion that crowded conditions don't significantly increase aggressive impulses.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

joealam1 wrote:[spoiler]OA:B[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've chosen C), i've considered that if coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys even in uncrowded condition than the fact that coping behavior was founded in crowded conditions is not representative to base the conclusion that crowded conditions don't significantly increase aggressive impulses.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Notice what the prompt says though. "it was not such attacks that increased significantly, but rather instances of "coping" behavior, such as submissive gestures, avoidance of dominant individuals, and huddling with relatives."

So "instances of coping" behavior increased significantly.

Noticing that that is what the statement implies is key for getting this one right, not only so that you don't choose C but also so that you do choose B.

The conclusion is about crowding causing not aggression but rather aggressive impulses.

B says "Coping behavior was adopted by crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them."

What B implies is that, contrary to what the argument concludes, while attacks did not increase significantly, aggressive impulses did increase significantly, and attacks did not increase significantly only because of the coping behaviors.

To score high in CR, you have to notice and include in your analysis key details and subtle aspects of the prompts.

Hey Marty,

Ufff nice catch, i wasn't able to catch this subtle difference between agression and agressive impulses.

Can you please detail your analysis on why answer C) si wrong,
Although now B) make more sense, i still see C) as a weakner.

Thanks.

Regards,

joealam1 wrote:Hey Marty,

Ufff nice catch, i wasn't able to catch this subtle difference between agression and agressive impulses.

Can you please detail your analysis on why answer C) si wrong,
Although now B) make more sense, i still see C) as a weakner.

Thanks.

Regards,

Joe, you are once again missing something key, and if you really want to score 740 on the GMAT, the way to train is to develop your CR skills through the process of figuring out what that thing is.

In my response above, I already mentioned what it is that you missed. So by carefully going through my response and the prompt, you should be able to figure out what you missed.

Taking an hour to figure out what's wrong with C is worth much more than my telling you is.

Hey Marty,

What do you think of the below?

Prompt:
Experiment on rats: crowding leads to increase in attacks
Experiment on rhesus monkeys: crowding did not lead to an incrase in attacks but rather an increase in coping behavior

Conclusion:
The rhesus monkey experiment shows that crowding does not lead to incrase in agressive impulse

Weaken: so we should try to find something to prove the conclusion wrong, in other words we need to find that crowind "does" incrase the agressivity and leads to attacks

A) this one could be a 180, if rhesus monkey is prone to fighting and still there was no signs of incrase of attacks in crowded situations, then this one can strenghten the argument. Another way to look at it is that it's out of context, we don't really care if the rhesus money is most prone to fighting ( words like " most" usually draws my attention as they might be too extreme)
C) this one mention the uncrowded situation, while the prompt is intrested in the crowded situation, so it is irrelevant to us. Moreoever, if the coping behaviors are found in both crowded and uncrowded that doesn't really weaken our conclusion as the prompt is dealing with increase in coping not just the similarity of coping behavior between the crowded and uncrowded.
D) that's an easy out, "some" is another word to look out for as it usually appear is most wrong answers. If some monkeys are in involved in attacks more than others this wouldn't weaken the conclusion. It's just a side info that neither weakens nor strengthen.
E) same analysis for E), some could be 2/1000 or 5/5000 so the number might not even count or might not be representative to take into consedaration. This is beside tha fact that the information provided is neutral it doesn't weaken nor strengthen, hence it is irrelevant.

B) is the correct one as it is explaining that the agressivity is still there, but coping behaviors are only present to inhibit or overshadow this agressive impulse which is still present. So the abscence of increase in attacks doesn't suggest that crowding doesn't increase the aggressive impulse.

joealam1 wrote:Hey Marty,

What do you think of the below?

I think you pretty much nailed it. Nice.

There are a couple of things you could tighten up.

You said the following.

"in other words we need to find that crowind "does" incrase the agressivity and leads to attacks"

You would have been better off leaving out "and leads to attacks", as actually all we are talking about here is "aggressive impulses", not actual attacks.

Also, in you analysis of E, perhaps you could have been more clear about the following. The fact that some of the monkeys in the experiments were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances does not change the observed relationship between the crowding that went on in the experiment and the behavior of the monkeys involved in the experiment.

Anyway, what you did is the way to do it.

You don't say "I can't" or "I don't see." You take the attitude that you can, and you have at the question until you do see why the wrong answers are wrong and the right answer is right.