GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 15 Oct 2019, 06:56

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Mar 2019, 11:04
1
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:53) correct 37% (02:09) wrong based on 253 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of noise that surrounds modern humans leads to antisocial behavior. To test this hypothesis, he placed a loudspeaker beside the cage of a pair of guinea pigs and played white noise through it. He brought the loudspeaker closer to the animals each subsequent day of the experiment, thereby increasing the guinea pigs’ daily exposure of noise. The scientist observed that the guinea pigs stopped socializing with each other after the seventh day but resumed socializing normally when the loudspeaker was removed from the cage.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the scientist's hypothesis?

A) During the experiment, the guinea pigs stopped socializing due to the intense level of the noise.
B) In a similar experiment conducted by another scientist, the guinea pigs did not resume socializing when the noise source was removed.
C) On the seventh day, the loudspeaker took up so much space in the cage that the guinea pigs could not get near each other.
D) Prior to the experiment, the guinea pigs used in the experiment socialized with each other normally.
E) The sound pressure level from a loudspeaker increases to the inverse square of the distance from the loudspeaker.

_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Booth Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 293
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 00:30
A is the only option within scope..

Intense level of noise stopped them from socialising.Not that the noise caused anti social behavior (side effects).
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Mar 2019
Posts: 2
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 06:26
The answer is B since it proves that even after the speakers were removed they did not begin socializing again, so there must be some third cause for the guinea pigs to stop socializing in the 7 days the experiment was run
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Mar 2019
Posts: 2
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 06:39
redskull1 wrote:
A is the only option within scope..

Intense level of noise stopped them from socialising.Not that the noise caused anti social behavior (side effects).


Why are we looking for an answer within scope? This is a weaken argument, so we should ideally allow the use of "new information" in the 5 statements
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:26
ShrutiShivnani1 wrote:
The answer is B since it proves that even after the speakers were removed they did not begin socializing again, so there must be some third cause for the guinea pigs to stop socializing in the 7 days the experiment was run


Can you explain why do you think that B is the correct answer?
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:29
redskull1 wrote:
A is the only option within scope..

Intense level of noise stopped them from socialising.Not that the noise caused anti social behavior (side effects).


Can you explain how A is weakening the argument?
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Booth Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 293
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:37
If A is not the answer please dont screw me up.Now my 2 cents...

CAMANISHPARMAR
A is weakening the argument by giving an alternate explanation.

@ShrutiShivanani1
The information has to be outside the scope but we have to stay within the scope of the argument.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:41
Why not c can be the answer. The premise says they stopped socialising after seven days. So it's probable that they are immobile and thus they do not socialise.
In a way, to put it in language of critical reasoning, the cause was something else(immobility) for the effect.(social behaviour)

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2018
Posts: 2
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:50
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
ShrutiShivnani1 wrote:
The answer is B since it proves that even after the speakers were removed they did not begin socializing again, so there must be some third cause for the guinea pigs to stop socializing in the 7 days the experiment was run


Can you explain why do you think that B is the correct answer?




I think this is a cause and effect kind of argument. The scientist thinks that being exposed to noise causes one to be anti-social. In GMAT terms, it means that noise is the only cause of being anti-social. So if there is no noise, they are not anti-social. But in B, the other scientist found that In the experiment, even after removing the noise, the Guinea pigs were anti-social, so this cause and effect paradigm is weakened. Is this reasoning correct ?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:54
ShrutiShivnani wrote:
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
ShrutiShivnani1 wrote:
The answer is B since it proves that even after the speakers were removed they did not begin socializing again, so there must be some third cause for the guinea pigs to stop socializing in the 7 days the experiment was run


Can you explain why do you think that B is the correct answer?




I think this is a cause and effect kind of argument. The scientist thinks that being exposed to noise causes one to be anti-social. In GMAT terms, it means that noise is the only cause of being anti-social. So if there is no noise, they are not anti-social. But in B, the other scientist found that In the experiment, even after removing the noise, the Guinea pigs were anti-social, so this cause and effect paradigm is weakened. Is this reasoning correct ?

Posted from my mobile device



I see a small flaw in this. Please correct me if i am wrong.

The causation is: constant sound causes anti social behaviour.

In the other experiment it is true they are not socializing again but it is still true that the sound might have caused the antisocial behaviour. The causation is the first line of the argument that the scientist wants to prove.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 11:58
redskull1 wrote:
If A is not the answer please dont screw me up.Now my 2 cents...

CAMANISHPARMAR
A is weakening the argument by giving an alternate explanation.

@ShrutiShivanani1
The information has to be outside the scope but we have to stay within the scope of the argument.

Posted from my mobile device


I have a query here too.

I see your reasoning that it is not constant barrage but an increasing intensity that has made them anti social.

But if you re read it writes, after 7th day they became antisocial and not before. So it's quite a possibility that they became antisocial while the sound was constant.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


C gives the best alternate reason as they are immobile now.
Regards,
Rishav
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2018
Posts: 2
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 12:03
rish2708 wrote:
redskull1 wrote:
If A is not the answer please dont screw me up.Now my 2 cents


A is weakening the argument by giving an alternate explanation.

@ShrutiShivanani1
The information has to be outside the scope but we have to stay within the scope of the argument.

Posted from my mobile device


I have a query here too.

I see your reasoning that it is not constant barrage but an increasing intensity that has made them anti social.

But if you re read it writes, after 7th day they became antisocial and not before. So it's quite a possibility that they became antisocial while the sound was constant.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


C gives the best alternate reason as they are immobile now.
Regards,
Rishav


Option C says ON the 7th day. So in that case they would have become anti social ON yhe 7th day, why AFTER the 7th day?
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 23:51
ShrutiShivnani wrote:

Option C says ON the 7th day. So in that case they would have become anti social ON yhe 7th day, why AFTER the 7th day?


I get your point. Lets wait for the OA.

Thats a subtle remark.

Maybe the observations by scientists came from next day. The immobility could have started from 7th :)

Though it's just a rogue assumption.

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Aug 2017
Posts: 19
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
Schools: NTU '21, Copenhagen
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2019, 06:38
I guess it's A. The scientist stated that it's the constant barrage of noise that makes people or guinea pigs antisocial. But here the experiment concluded that it was the 7th day when the sound intensity was too much that they became anti-social. So, during the first 6 days, constant noise didnt affect them much, weakening his conclusion. It was the intensity on the 7th day that made them anti social.

Answer B would strengthen the argument, as the noise constant lead to previously normal guinea pigs to become antisocial irreversibly.

Answer C, doesn't really attack the argument. During the experiment, the scientist was just changing the position of the speaker not it's size. So be it first day or second day, the speaker took the same space.

answer D and E do not affect the argument in any way.

Hope i made it a bit clearer
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2019, 22:47
redskull1 wrote:
If A is not the answer please dont screw me up.Now my 2 cents...

CAMANISHPARMAR
A is weakening the argument by giving an alternate explanation.

@ShrutiShivanani1
The information has to be outside the scope but we have to stay within the scope of the argument.

Posted from my mobile device


A is not the correct answer. You may like to try once again.
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2019, 22:48
ShrutiShivnani wrote:
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
ShrutiShivnani1 wrote:
The answer is B since it proves that even after the speakers were removed they did not begin socializing again, so there must be some third cause for the guinea pigs to stop socializing in the 7 days the experiment was run


Can you explain why do you think that B is the correct answer?




I think this is a cause and effect kind of argument. The scientist thinks that being exposed to noise causes one to be anti-social. In GMAT terms, it means that noise is the only cause of being anti-social. So if there is no noise, they are not anti-social. But in B, the other scientist found that In the experiment, even after removing the noise, the Guinea pigs were anti-social, so this cause and effect paradigm is weakened. Is this reasoning correct ?

Posted from my mobile device


B is not the correct answer. You may like to try once again.
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2019, 22:49
pranaybhasin wrote:
I guess it's A. The scientist stated that it's the constant barrage of noise that makes people or guinea pigs antisocial. But here the experiment concluded that it was the 7th day when the sound intensity was too much that they became anti-social. So, during the first 6 days, constant noise didnt affect them much, weakening his conclusion. It was the intensity on the 7th day that made them anti social.

Answer B would strengthen the argument, as the noise constant lead to previously normal guinea pigs to become antisocial irreversibly.

Answer C, doesn't really attack the argument. During the experiment, the scientist was just changing the position of the speaker not it's size. So be it first day or second day, the speaker took the same space.

answer D and E do not affect the argument in any way.

Hope i made it a bit clearer


A is not the correct answer. You may like to try once again.
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 71
GMAT 1: 530 Q43 V20
WE: Analyst (Consumer Products)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2019, 23:35
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of noise that surrounds modern humans leads to antisocial behavior. To test this hypothesis, he placed a loudspeaker beside the cage of a pair of guinea pigs and played white noise through it. He brought the loudspeaker closer to the animals each subsequent day of the experiment, thereby increasing the guinea pigs’ daily exposure of noise. The scientist observed that the guinea pigs stopped socializing with each other after the seventh day but resumed socializing normally when the loudspeaker was removed from the cage.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the scientist's hypothesis?

A) During the experiment, the guinea pigs stopped socializing due to the intense level of the noise.
B) In a similar experiment conducted by another scientist, the guinea pigs did not resume socializing when the noise source was removed.
C) On the seventh day, the loudspeaker took up so much space in the cage that the guinea pigs could not get near each other.
D) Prior to the experiment, the guinea pigs used in the experiment socialized with each other normally.
E) The sound pressure level from a loudspeaker increases to the inverse square of the distance from the loudspeaker.


I would want to go with C. Below is my reasoning for the same. Feel free to point errors. Thanks!

The question asks us to weaken the scientist's hypothesis which states that the constant noise (lets call it X) leads to antisocial behavior (AB; lets call it Y). In order to weaken we need to introduce evidence that may show that it is either Y that leads to X, X and Y are just a coincidence or there is a third factor Z that leads to Y.

Option A - Strengthens the hypothesis by suggesting that it is the noise that led to the AB
Option B - Strengthens the hypothesis by indicating that the guinea pigs stopped socializing after the noise was introduced and the effect continued even after the noise was removed
Option C - This weakens the hypothesis by indicating that there was a third factor i.e. space constraint which led to the AB and not noise
Option D - Strengthens the hypothesis. If we combine this with the last line in the prompt then what we see is that the guinea pigs were socializing normally before and after the experiment, but stopped socializing when the white noise was introduced, hence strengthening the claim that it was indeed the noise that led to AB
Option E - If my interpretation is correct then this statement tells us that \(SPL = 1/distance^2\) which means that the intensity of the sound decreases if the distance of the cage from the loudspeaker increases. Applying to our prompt where the speaker was brought closer to the cage would have increased the SPL. Combine this with the evidence provided that the socializing stopped on \(7th\) day indicates that it was indeed the noise that was the culprit.
_________________
Cheers. Wishing Luck to Every GMAT Aspirant!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Posts: 2
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2019, 06:01
2
C is the answer:
C) On the seventh day, the loudspeaker took up so much space in the cage that the guinea pigs could not get near each other
the conclusion is " that the G pigs stopped socializing after the 7th day,,,,,,,,"
reasoning: " noise caused it "
option c: " not really, turns out speakers were occupying the space b/w them to socialize".
notice how 7th day is the common factor b/w not socializing and speakers intervention.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
V
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1685
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
Schools: INSEAD Jan '19
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2019, 10:31
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of noise that surrounds modern humans leads to antisocial behavior. To test this hypothesis, he placed a loudspeaker beside the cage of a pair of guinea pigs and played white noise through it. He brought the loudspeaker closer to the animals each subsequent day of the experiment, thereby increasing the guinea pigs’ daily exposure of noise. The scientist observed that the guinea pigs stopped socializing with each other after the seventh day but resumed socializing normally when the loudspeaker was removed from the cage.


Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the scientist's hypothesis?

We need a choice which says "noise" has not created "anti social behaviour". Alternate reason is a weakner.

A) During the experiment, the guinea pigs stopped socializing due to the intense level of the noise.

It is a strengthener suggesting that the scientist's hypothesis is correct.

B) In a similar experiment conducted by another scientist, the guinea pigs did not resume socializing when the noise source was removed.

Similar experiment is IRRELEVANT.

C) On the seventh day, the loudspeaker took up so much space in the cage that the guinea pigs could not get near each other.

Best among available.

D) Prior to the experiment, the guinea pigs used in the experiment socialized with each other normally.

We are concerned with what happened after the experiment.

E) The sound pressure level from a loudspeaker increases to the inverse square of the distance from the loudspeaker.

IRRELEVANT
_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....   [#permalink] 19 Mar 2019, 10:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne