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, although there was an increase in instances of “coping” behavior—such as submissive gestures and avoidance of dominant individuals—attacks did not become any more frequent. Therefore it is not likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as was seen in rats.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions.
(B) In the studies of rats, nondominant individuals were found to increasingly avoid dominant individuals when the animals were in crowded conditions.
(C) Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.
(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in significantly more attacks than the other monkeys were.
(E) Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.
Hi Mike, I am not able to understand the logic presented in option (although i got the logic in Stimuli) & how come option (C) strengthens the argument? Can you kindly dispel my confusion. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame
First, I will say I find it a little unusual that no one seems to be able to identify the source of this question. Hmmm.
Because you ask about (C)
, I will simply address this. The argument is very tricky. First, it gives us evidence about rats. Then it gives us seemingly contradictory evidence about rhesus monkeys. Finally, it draws a conclusion, not about rhesus monkeys, but about all monkeys
. Clearly, there's some important unstated link
between what we know about rhesus monkeys specifically, and what we can conclude about all monkeys. Always look for these unstated links --- what apparent leap does the argument make between the evidence and the conclusion? This is an assumption of the argument, and it's absolutely core to the argument. See this blog:http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments- ... -the-gmat/
Obviously, in a "find the assumption question", this is relevant. One of the best ways to strengthen an argument is to verify its assumption, and one of the best ways to attack an argument is to undercut its assumption. Right there, you have the three most common GMAT CR questions, and a single skill, finding the assumption, can help with all three.
Again, here the assumption has something to do with a link between how aggressive rhesus monkeys are and how aggressive other kinds of monkeys would be.
goes to the heart of this --- essentially, it says rhesus monkeys are way more aggressive than other kinds of monkeys. Therefore, if the overcrowding is not enough to provoke the pugnacious rhesus monkeys to aggression, then it would not be enough to provoke any of the less aggressive monkeys either.
affirms the assumption of the argument, so it is an ideal strengthener, and the best answer among these five.
Does this make sense?
Magoosh Test Prep