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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

TOUGH KAPLAN CR QUESTION

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:01 am
by varun007 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:40 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.

OA IS B . CONFUSED . PLS CAN SOEBODY EXPLIAN IN DETAIL
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:56 am
Thanked: 7 times

by sethids » Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:12 am
The suitable answer choice would be the one which supports that the sweetner is safe for human consumption.
Because it has been tested on rats, if there is evidence that it is largely safe for rats, it should be more or less safe for other living species as well.

Choice B mentions that the rat species used in the experiment has a cancer incidence of 1 in 540 which is about 0.2% and hence is largely safe. It matches wich the premise in the question that only 1 of 520 rats developed cancer. So it was not by chance.

Looking at the other options:
A. Irrelevant.
C. Shows that 10% of rats developed cancer. It weakens the claim.
D. Doesn't support the claim.
E. Irrelevant.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:08 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 10 times

by gmatrant » Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:12 am
but sethids..
where is the relation between the rats and the human beings... the claim is that the sweetner will not cause cancer to human beings. And the author is trying to prove that by using rats as a reference. But there should be a statement that if it is good for the rats it is good for the human beings too..

pls comment...
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:56 am
Thanked: 7 times

by sethids » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:54 pm
The relation is the very nature of scientific experiments.
Any new medicine etc. are tested on laboratory animals first and then if they produce desired (or safe) results in those experiments then those are made available for human consumption.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:08 am
Thanked: 2 times

by James_83 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:16 pm
sethids Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The suitable answer choice would be the one which supports that the sweetner is safe for human consumption.
Because it has been tested on rats, if there is evidence that it is largely safe for rats, it should be more or less safe for other living species as well.

Choice B mentions that the rat species used in the experiment has a cancer incidence of 1 in 540 which is about 0.2% and hence is largely safe. It matches wich the premise in the question that only 1 of 520 rats developed cancer. So it was not by chance.

Looking at the other options:
A. Irrelevant.
C. Shows that 10% of rats developed cancer. It weakens the claim.
D. Doesn't support the claim.
E. Irrelevant
hi sethids,
i am still not convinced with option B.I think it is actually weakning the argument.When a particular species has already chances of developing cancer is 0.2%, then how could a company claims the results of 1:520 on that species. It would be more appropriate if the chances would be quite high and the eating of sweetner does not provoke any cancer.

Please comment if there is a gap in my understanding of the options.I have opted for C which actually compares the product with the existing sweetner.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:56 am
Thanked: 7 times

by sethids » Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:18 am
Ok... Lets try to look at it this way...

The company claims that only one of 520 rats developed cancer when the new sweetner was tested on the rat species.

Now the choice B mentions that the species has a spontaneous cancer incidence rate of 1 in 540.
In this situation, even if the sweetner was not given to those rats, 1 in 540 has a chance of developing cancer.
According to the information provided, it is very much likely that it is the tendency of the rat species that led to the development of cancer and has nothing to do with the sweetner under test.

Hope that helps.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:08 am
Thanked: 2 times

by James_83 » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:22 pm
ohh....i got it...actually,i was taking this option into other way..

Thanks for explaination. :)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 3 times

by NSNguyen » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:18 am
IMO: B
of all, only B confirm the result while others irrelevant or out of scope.
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 2:18 am
In my opinion B is the most logical one.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1