Franklin's Super-Fly Critical Reasoning Question Thread : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 7
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 15:27

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Franklin's Super-Fly Critical Reasoning Question Thread

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 191
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 259 [3] , given: 18

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2009, 14:50
3
KUDOS
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the scientist's argument?

A) Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.

B) It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.

C) Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behvaior simply because they act impulsively.

D) Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.

E) The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.

C and E -> are irrelevant.
A and D -> Imprecise quantifiers (many) are dangerours in GMAT. Many could still be less than 1% of the adult population.
B -> if it is not possible to distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior, then the scientist's research has no value, and nothing can be concluded based on it.

Great question.
_________________

Please kudos if my post helps.

Last edited by powerka on 03 Oct 2009, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 191
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2009, 15:01
Franklin wrote:
Sorry guys for my sporadic posting. I was in NYC for a conference.

Quote:
Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula portrayed vampires - the "undead" who roam at night to such the blood out of living people - as able to turn into bats. As a result of the pervasive influence of this novel, many people now assume that a vampire's being able to turn into a bat is an essential part of vampire myths. However, this assumption is false, for vampire myths existed in Europe long before Stoker's book.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) At least one of the European vampire myths that predated Stoker's book did not portray vampires as strictly nocturnal.

B) Vampire myths in Central and South America, where real vampire bats are found, portray vampires as able to turn into bats.

C) Vampire myths did not exist outside Europe before the publication of Stoker's Dracula.

D) At least one of the European vampire myths that predated Stoker's book did not portray vampires as able to turn into bats.

E) At the time he wrote Dracula, Stoker was familiar with earlier European vampire myths.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
D

The author concludes that people should not assume that "vampires turning into bats is essential" because "vampire myths existed in Europe long before Stoker's book".

The answer must contain "vampires turning into bats" and "Europe".

D is the only answer that does so.
_________________

Please kudos if my post helps.

Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2009, 23:32
IMO D.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Location: Ukraine, Kyiv
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 60

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2009, 01:31
powerka wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the scientist's argument?

A) Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.

B) It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.

C) Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behvaior simply because they act impulsively.

D) Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.

E) The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.

C and E -> are irrelevant.
A and D -> Imprecise quantifiers (many) are dangerours in GMAT. Many could still be less than 1% of the adult population.
B -> if it is not possible to distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior, then the scientist's research has no value, and nothing can be concluded based on it.

Great question.

Agree with you, powerka, that this is a very good question.
I understand that the best answer is B because it makes scientist's study useless.
But how do you think, what is the reason to negate E?
_________________

Never, never, never give up

Intern
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2009, 21:12
First of all, many thanks to Franklin..Man hats off to you.. what a beautiful post !! This should be made sticky. I couldn't resist - finished all the questions in one sitting. Please post some more questions. I wish I would get some more such questions to practice as I have my Test next week. Thanks everyone for posting their responses and many thanks to Franklin once again.Please post some more (as soon as possible : out of selfishness I am getting impatient)
Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [2] , given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2009, 23:06
2
KUDOS
Franklin wrote:
The Law School Admission Council created this question back in 2003-4 ... I thought the question to be quite prophetic!

Quote:
The economy is doing badly. First, the real estate slump has been with us for some time. Second, car sales are at their lowest in years. Of course, had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. But, their occurrence together makes it quite probable that my conclusion is correct.

Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

A) If car sales are at their lowest in years, then it is likely that the economy is doing badly.

B) If the economy is doing badly, then either the real estate market or the car sales market is not healthy.

C) If the real estate market is healthy, then it is likely that the economy as a whole is healthy.

D) If the economy is in a healthy state, then it is unlikely that the real estate and car sales markets are both in a slump.

E) The bad condition of the economy implies that both the real estate and the car sales markets are doing badly.

This one is a difficult one, but if anyone cares, here is the write up I did on it...
This is definitely one of those questions that requires a lot of time...and not worth it on the LSAT test day...

PROMPT: Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above? So this is a "Soft Must Be True" Question.

RES: "Real Estate Slump for Some Time"
CLY: "Car Sales Lowest in Years"
~ (the sign for tilde): "NOT"
v (small letter v): "OR"
& (ampersand): "AND"
--> (Arrow): "THEN"
-M-> : "MOST"

***Note: People have two problems here:

FIRST PROBLEM:

Sentence 4: "Of course, had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy." One of the challenges here is understanding what "consistent with" means in logical reasoning. This requires an understanding of higher level logic (the concept of entailment in particular), but I will try to simplify...Many, incorrectly diagram this as: ~RES v ~CLY --> ~EDB (With a contraposition [CP] of this is: EDB --> RES & CLY)

However, If it says that "A is consistent with B"...It means that "A is entailed by B"...or more simply "B entails A".
Thus...B is the antecedent (sufficient) and A is the consequent (required) . Take a look, for example, a statement/quote by FDR. "I have decided that the course of conduct which I am following is consistent with my sense of responsibility as president in time of war". More simply, it states, my action (let's refer to as action X) is consistent with my responsibility (let's refer to as responsibility y). The question you have to ask is what "requires" what. It is his responsibility that requires the action, not the other way around. Thus, the correct diagram will be "If I have a sense of responsibility as a president in time of war, then I will take this course of conduct."

SO...going back to question...you have to diagram the above as a healthy economy requires RES or CLY
Which is (And remember EDB is Economy Doing Badly, so ~EDB is a healthy economy).
~EDB --> ~RES v ~CLY (with contraposition [CP] RES & CLY --> EDB)

SECOND PROBLEM:

Sentence 5: "But, their occurrence together makes it quite probable that my conclusion is correct."
***His conclusion, that he refers to in this sentence, is EDB. But what most people miss is that the last sentence is diagrammable. The word, "probable" should be a sign of a logical force (most...or 50%+1).
Diagram is: RES & CLY -M-> EDB (There is no contraposition [CP] of MOST statements).

So if we put this down it looks like this:

P1: ~EDB --> ~RES v ~CLY (CP: RES & CLY --> EDB)
P2: RES & CLY -M-> EDB
P3: We have RES
P4: We have CLY
-----
CONCLUSION: EDB

Note: While you can sometimes combine most and all statements, you don't get anything useful from the above, so we hit the answer choices.

A) If car sales are at their lowest in years, then it is likely that the economy is doing badly.
***NOTE: Likely has a logical force of MOST (50%+1)
Diagram: CLY -M-> EDB
***EXPLANATION: We have no evidence to support that CLY alone will "likely" cause EDB. It could...but it is not "MUST BE TRUE"
SO...WRONG...

B) If the economy is doing badly, then either the real estate market or the car sales market is not healthy.
***Diagram: EDB --> RES v CLY
***EXPLANATION: Fallacy of the converse of P1. It could be true, but it is not a "MUST BE TRUE"
SO...WRONG...

C) If the real estate market is healthy, then it is likely that the economy as a whole is healthy.
***Diagram: ~RES -M-> ~EDB
***EXPLANATION: This is the fallacy of the inverse in P2. It could be true, but it is not a "MUST BE TRUE".
SO...WRONG...

D) Lets come back to this at the end...

E) The bad condition of the economy implies that both the real estate and the car sales markets are doing badly.
***Diagram: EDB --> RES & CLY
***EXPLANATION: Again, fallacy of the converse for CP of P1. EBD does not require RES & CLY, so not a "MUST BE TRUE".
SO...WRONG...

Ok...Back to D)
If the economy is in a healthy state, then it is unlikely that the real estate and car sales markets are both in a slump.

Lets diagram one at a time:
If the economy is in a healthy state: ~EDB
Then it is UNLIKELY that you have both RES & CLY:

Unlikely is a quantifier meaning NOT LIKELY. This does not mean some...it just means NOT MOST...or "MOST ARE NOT"
So...
You diagram it as:
~EDB -M-> ~(RES & CLY)
Which is the logical equivalent of...
~EDB -M-> ~RES v ~CLY

And, if you look at P1, you see...
~EDB --> ~RES v ~CLY

And b/c we understand that if All A are B, then Most A are B

You can conclude, that Given P1...It MUST BE TRUE that...
~EDB -M-> ~RES v ~CLY
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 435
Schools: UT at Austin, Indiana State University, UC at Berkeley
WE 1: 5.5
WE 2: 5.5
WE 3: 6.0
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2010, 16:57
I guess the answer is A, because money exists because we believe in it.
If we stop believing in it, it will disappear, that means it is not real.
_________________

Never give up,,,

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 375 [0], given: 47

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 08:44
Quote:
It is proposed to allow the sale, without prescription, of a medication that physicians currently prescribe to treat the common ear inflammation called "swimmer's ear." The principal objection is that most people lack the expertise for proper self-diagnosis and might not seek medical help for more serious conditions in the mistaken belief that they have swimmer's ear. Yet in a recent study, of 1,000 people who suspected that they had swimmer's ear, 84 percent had made a correct diagnosis - a slightly better accuracy rate than physicians have in diagnosing swimmer's ear. Thus, clearly, most people can diagnose swimmer's ear in themselves without ever having to consult a physician.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion?

A) Case in which swimmer's ear progresses to more serious infections are very rare.

B) Most of those who suspected incorrectly that they had swimmer's ear also believed that they had other ailments that in fact they did not have.

C) Most of the people who diagnosed themselves correctly had been treated by a physician for a prior occurrence of swimmer's ear.

D) Physicians who specialize in ear diseases are generally able to provide more accurate diagnoses than those provided by general practitioners.

E) For many people who develop swimmer's ear, the condition disappears without medical or pharmaceutical intervention.

IMO... C... 1min 30 seconds....
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 375 [0], given: 47

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 08:46
Quote:
In an experiment, researchers played a series of musical intervals - two-note sequences - to a large diverse group of six-month old babies. They found that the babies paid significantly more attention when the intervals were perfect octaves, fifths, or fourths than otherwise. These intervals are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world. Thus, humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals than to others.

Which one of the following, if true most strengthens the argument?

A) Several similar experiments using older children and adults found that these subjects, too, had a general tendency to pay more attention to octaves, fifths, and fourths than to other musical intervals.

B) None of the babies in the experiment had previous exposure to music from any culture.

C) All of the babies in the experiment had been exposed to music drawn equally from a wide variety of cultures around the world.

D) In a second experiment, these same babies showed no clear tendency to notice primary colors more than other colors.

E) Octaves, fifths, and fourths were played more frequently during the experiment than other musical intervals were.

IMO B... 1 min 7 sec
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Manager
Status: Its Wow or Never
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 205
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 12:34
Franklin wrote:
Okay, so I got a PM stating that the questions I've posted so far are too easy. I guess I need to rectify that!

It's bonus Wednesday ... I will post three questions since I will not be able to provide a question tomorrow (attending a seminar).

I thought about adding my reasoning to the discussion but I think that would be superfluous especially since snipertrader did such a fantastic job!

Quote:
In an experiment, researchers played a series of musical intervals - two-note sequences - to a large diverse group of six-month old babies. They found that the babies paid significantly more attention when the intervals were perfect octaves, fifths, or fourths than otherwise. These intervals are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world. Thus, humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals than to others.

Which one of the following, if true most strengthens the argument?

A) Several similar experiments using older children and adults found that these subjects, too, had a general tendency to pay more attention to octaves, fifths, and fourths than to other musical intervals.

B) None of the babies in the experiment had previous exposure to music from any culture.

C) All of the babies in the experiment had been exposed to music drawn equally from a wide variety of cultures around the world.

D) In a second experiment, these same babies showed no clear tendency to notice primary colors more than other colors.

E) Octaves, fifths, and fourths were played more frequently during the experiment than other musical intervals were.

IMO B.. 1:43
I narrowed down to B and D but final answer B.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think you can,you can
If you think you can't,you are right.

Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 10:14
Scientist: A controversy in paleontology centers on the question of whether prehistoric human ancestors began to develop sophisticated tools before or after they came to stand upright. I argue that they stood upright first, simply because advanced toolmaking requires free use of hands, and standing upright makes this possible.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the scientist's argument?

A) Many animals that do not stand upright have learned to make basic tools.

B) Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who did not stand upright.

C) Many prehistoric human ancestors who stood upright had no sophisticated tools.

D) Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more dexterity with their hands than did those who did not stand upright.

E) Many of the earliest sophisticated tools did not require their users to be able to stand upright.

Hello Franklin,

I am really sorry to pull out an old question. however, i had a query.
according to ur earlier post, the correct answer is B.

I am wondering y D may not be the rt choice.

Here's my explanation. Correct me where i'm goin wrong.According to the stimulus:
"advanced toolmaking requires free use of hands, and standing upright makes this possible"

Thus: unstated assumption: it is necessary to use hands to make sophisticated tools.

If we can prove that inspite of standing upright, prehistoric ancestors din't have the capability to use their hands properly, it would weaken the argument significantly, and thus option D seems apt.

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 330
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 19:29
For OCTAVE etc, IMO B.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1271 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2010, 01:08
I marked E.
It is nowhere mentioned in the argument that researchers found the sweet-potato parasite. The only thing mentioned as the conclusion - all the efforts has been so far is wasted. So, I infer that the parasite is still hidden.

Franklin wrote:
D is the correct answer! Good job everyone. I will post another question tonight.

I'm timing myself on these question types. Feel free to include how long it took you to correctly answer the question. I did this question in a minute and sixteen seconds.

The process of getting the right answer:

I first identified the conclusion which is easy on this particular question because of the conclusion indicator "Therefore".

Conclusion: Therefore, the search for a parasite has so far been wasted effort.

I next read the question stem which indicates an assumption question type. So I need to identify a missing piece that logically leads to the conclusion.

Summarizing the premises gives us the info that entomologists identified (incorrectly) the sweet-potato whitefly as the crop pest and looked for a parasite (out of an unidentified number of parasites) to control the whitefly population. Unfortunately for the entomologists the silverleaf whitefly was the culprit. In order for the 3 years of effort to be wasted none of the parasites identified for the sweet-potato whitefly are parasites for the silverleaf whitefly.

On to the answer choices ...

A) All varieties of the sweet-potato whitefly are serious crop pests.

This answer is irrelevant. It could very well be true but we want to know why the entomologists' effort was wasted.

B) If a crop pest has a parasite, that parasite can always be used to control that pest.

We don't care whether a parasite will control the pest population. We are trying to ascertain why the entomologists' effort was wasted.

C) The chances of successfully identifying a useful parasite of the new pest have increased since the proper identification of the pest.

We don't care about the chances. Totally irrelevant.

D) No parasite of the sweet-potato whitefly is also a parasite of the silverleaf whitefly.

Bingo.

E) In the last three years, the entomologists found no parasites of the sweet-potato whitefly.

This may seem like a good answer choice but it conflicts with the information in the passage which states that the entomologists confined their search to parasites of the sweet-potato whitefly. This essentially means that the sweet-potato whitefly has parasites.

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 104
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2010, 05:56
lots of qns to practice
_________________

Please do consider giving kudos if you like my posts

Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2010, 09:07
sprtng wrote:
good Q...I am going with B, as we need to prove that Babies has not been contaminated in this experiment...

tough one with A tho but didn't choose it because it doesn't eliminate the possibility of these samples has all been contaminated prior to this experiment...

Premise given :That babies pay more attetntion to blah blah blah......

suddenly in conclusion :its said that humans thus have a natural tendency to --------......

Note very carefully ,how can a thing for babies be held true for entire humans ,obviously the assumption that whats true for babies must also be true for other age groups as well ,so Onluy A matches this option.....correct me if i am wrong......
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 24

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2010, 03:07
IMO D
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2010, 02:44
Franklin wrote:
For anyone who decides to answer the question please put down your reasoning ... even if you think it blows! Writing out how you approach the question will help everyone reading the thread.

The following question took me 1 minute 8 seconds to answer...
(This stimulus is approximately the length of the 3 CR questions I saw on the actual exam. Definitely threw me for a loop!)

Quote:
It is proposed to allow the sale, without prescription, of a medication that physicians currently prescribe to treat the common ear inflammation called "swimmer's ear." The principal objection is that most people lack the expertise for proper self-diagnosis and might not seek medical help for more serious conditions in the mistaken belief that they have swimmer's ear. Yet in a recent study, of 1,000 people who suspected that they had swimmer's ear, 84 percent had made a correct diagnosis - a slightly better accuracy rate than physicians have in diagnosing swimmer's ear. Thus, clearly, most people can diagnose swimmer's ear in themselves without ever having to consult a physician.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion?

Picked C in 1.24 mins..............

A) Case in which swimmer's ear progresses to more serious infections are very rare.

B) Most of those who suspected incorrectly that they had swimmer's ear also believed that they had other ailments that in fact they did not have.

C) Most of the people who diagnosed themselves correctly had been treated by a physician for a prior occurrence of swimmer's ear.

D) Physicians who specialize in ear diseases are generally able to provide more accurate diagnoses than those provided by general practitioners.

E) For many people who develop swimmer's ear, the condition disappears without medical or pharmaceutical intervention.

_________________

Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!

GOD help those who help themselves....

Manager
Status: Last few days....Have pressed the throttle
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 70
WE 1: 6 years - Consulting
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 27

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 01:43
powerka wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Most plants have developed chemical defenses against parasites. The average plant contains about 40 natural pesticides - chemical compounds toxic to bacteria, fungi, and other parasites. Humans ingest these natural pesticides without harm every day. Therefore, the additional threat posed by synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans is minimal.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:

A) Humans have been consuming natural plant pesticides from millennia and have had time to adapt to them.

B) The concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are typically much lower than the concentrations of synthetic pesticides in sprayed crop plants.

C) Natural plant pesticides are typically less potent than synthetic pesticides, whose toxicity is highly concentrated.

D) Natural plant pesticides generally serve only as defenses against specific parasites, whereas synthetic pesticides are often harmful to a wide variety of organisms.

E) The synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans usually have chemical structures similar to those of the natural pesticides produced by the plants.

Answer E clearly is the only option that does not weaken the argument. In fact, it may even strengthen it.

Sorry Franklin, can't give a better explanation; as with most CR questions on this thread, I found the answers pretty straightforward.

Cheers,

The final fight after POE is between A and D. D looks a strong contender as it has no effect on the argument, it talks about effect to wide variety of organisms - It does not tell us anything about the affect of synthetic pesticide on humans.

_________________

Consider giving Kudos if my post helps in some way

Manager
Status: Last few days....Have pressed the throttle
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 70
WE 1: 6 years - Consulting
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 27

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 01:52
Franklin wrote:
Spoilt wrote:
B for me.

POE : B is the only clear choice.

Is this for the classical pianist question? If so, B is not the answer.

E is the answer, was an easy one
_________________

Consider giving Kudos if my post helps in some way

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 446
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 157

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 04:19
Franklin wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Scientist: A controversy in paleontology centers on the question of whether prehistoric human ancestors began to develop sophisticated tools before or after they came to stand upright. I argue that they stood upright first, simply because advanced toolmaking requires free use of hands, and standing upright makes this possible.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the scientist's argument?

A) Many animals that do not stand upright have learned to make basic tools.

B) Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who did not stand upright.

C) Many prehistoric human ancestors who stood upright had no sophisticated tools.

D) Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more dexterity with their hands than did those who did not stand upright.

E) Many of the earliest sophisticated tools did not require their users to be able to stand upright.

Scientist's argument: Prehistoric human ancestors stood upright prior to the development of sophisticated tools.

What weakens the argument? Sophisticated tools were created before our prehistoric ancestors stood upright. (The mental image of how it must have looked caused me to chuckle.)

A) Who cares about many animals ... we only care about our prehistoric ancestors.

B) Correct. I find that the correct answer usually changes the wording just enough to make it appear different from the wording or terminology in the stimulus. For example, the stimulus uses the words "sophisticated tools" and in this answer choice the words "advanced hunting weapons."

C) Irrelevant.

D) How does this info weaken the scientist's argument? It doesn't.

E) Great ... but that still doesn't weaken the argument that prehistoric ancestors stood upright prior to the development of sophisticated tools.

I think B is actually the wrong answer as sophisticated tools do not have to be advanced hunting tools. They may comprise of a nut cracker.

C is a better answer even though its not exactly satisfactory because atleast it states the relation.
One may argue that some may not have the advanced tools.
_________________

Re: Franklin's Super-Fly Critical Reasoning Question Thread   [#permalink] 21 Sep 2010, 04:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9    Next  [ 168 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Critical Reasoning Question - Clarification 1 14 May 2015, 01:43
1 Critical Reasoning question doubt 0 17 Nov 2014, 07:23
Help with Critical Reasoning Questions 5 22 Feb 2012, 20:17
11 Causality in Critical Reasoning Questions 6 07 Jan 2012, 21:43
Critical Reasoning Question 2 12 Jul 2009, 02:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by