Chemical Company--Rats

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:40 pm
Thanked: 7 times

Chemical Company--Rats

by kris610 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:37 am
A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats that were given high doses of a new artificial sweetener developed cancer while all the others remained healthy, the sweetener is not carcinogenic for human beings and ought to be approved for human consumption.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the chemical company’s claim?

(A) Chemicals that are carcinogenic for rats are usually also carcinogenic for other animals, such as guinea pigs, used in experiments.

(B) The spontaneous incidence of cancer in this particular strain of rat is approximately one in 540.

(C) Tests conducted on a certain strain of mouse show that, of 500 mice given a dose of sweetener similar to that given the rats, 53 developed cancer.

(D) Certain chemicals that are carcinogenic for human beings have been shown not to be carcinogenic for rats.

(E) The average lifespan of the strain of rat used in the experiment is 2 years; the chemical company terminated the experiment when the rats were 13 months old.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:24 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by mgmt_gmat » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:07 am
IMO (D)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:41 pm
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:770

by raghavsarathy » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:39 am
IMO - A

C weakens the argument by showing that the incidence of cancer was much higher in mice.

B ,D and E are OOS

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:09 am
Thanked: 2 times

by kamalsinghy » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:01 am
IMO B.

A. Out of scope.
C. Weakening the argument.
D. It's not strengthening rather talking about of reversal effect.
E. Weakening the argument.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:22 pm

by Estone29 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:01 am
IMO - B

B. If true then it shows that the sweetener most likely didn't even cause the cancer, but the fact that 1 in 520 rats will develop cancer naturally. Thus, strengthening the chemical companies claims.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:40 pm
Thanked: 7 times

by kris610 » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:15 pm
OA is [/spoiler]

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Sun May 15, 2016 11:34 pm
I believe the correct answer should be B