Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a blowgun to tranquilize baboons in the Kenyan savanna. Once immobile, he could attach radio collars and track the baboon's movement. In one study, whenever a baboon's radio collar slipped off he would put it back on. This would involve another session of immobilizing the baboon with a tranquilizing dart. He noticed that female baboons that were frequently recollared had significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibited fertility.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The dose of tranquilizer delivered by a tranquilizer dart was large enough to give the Sapolsky a generous margin of safety.
The fertility rate of uncollared female baboons had been increasing in the past few decades.
Any stress that female baboons might have suffered as a result of being immobilized and handled had little or no negative effect on their fertility.
The male baboons did not lose their collars as often as the female baboons did.
The tranquilizer used in immobilizing baboons was the same as the tranquilizer used in working with other large mammals.
Can I have your thoughts on this please - 3-4 of the answers, seemed reasonable for me. I chose correct OC in the end, but couldn't quite say why it was correct.