It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 09:35

### 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

# A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 0

A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 01:09
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

88% (00:46) correct 13% (00:00) wrong based on 9 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage in rats.-Sixty-five percent of all rats whose environments exposed them to low levels of the toxin sulfur dioxide died of liver disorder. Ninety percent of all rats who died of liver disorder, however, were not exposed to any environmental toxins.

Which of the following would provide a feasible explanation for the statistics above?

A Environmental and nonenvironmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive.
B There is only one cause of fatal liver disease in rats.
C Environmental toxins are not particularly dangerous to the livers of rats.
D Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulfur dioxide.
E Most rats will not suffer from exposure to low levels of sulfur dioxide.

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 429

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 01:44
x97agarwal wrote:
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage in rats.-Sixty-five percent of all rats whose environments exposed them to low levels of the toxin sulfur dioxide died of liver disorder. Ninety percent of all rats who died of liver disorder, however, were not exposed to any environmental toxins.

Which of the following would provide a feasible explanation for the statistics above?

A Environmental and nonenvironmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive.
B There is only one cause of fatal liver disease in rats.
C Environmental toxins are not particularly dangerous to the livers of rats.
D Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulfur dioxide.
E Most rats will not suffer from exposure to low levels of sulfur dioxide.

a) because both environmental and nonenvironmental causes cause liver disease

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 348

Kudos [?]: 96 [2], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 01:51
2
KUDOS
I think its D.
Assuming 100 rats were in the study and 90 rats died due to liver damage.
90% of those died were not exposed to environmental toxins-> 81
Which means that 9 might have died due to toxins. If 13 were exposed to toxins,
65% of those exposed to toxins died-> ~9

This should give a feasible solution to the problem. ie, "Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulfur dioxide"

"Environmental and nonenvironmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive" also is very compelling, howeve, I will go with D.
_________________

To find what you seek in the road of life, the best proverb of all is that which says:
"Leave no stone unturned."
-Edward Bulwer Lytton

Kudos [?]: 96 [2], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 33

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

Location: Danbury

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 02:08
Ans should be D

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

Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 162

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 02:12
using the same logic i.e. 100 rats etc etc

vote for D

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 10:27
Between A and D.

I choose D based on the same logic given above.

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 5

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2008, 10:32
leonidas wrote:
I think its D.
Assuming 100 rats were in the study and 90 rats died due to liver damage.
90% of those died were not exposed to environmental toxins-> 81
Which means that 9 might have died due to toxins. If 13 were exposed to toxins,
65% of those exposed to toxins died-> ~9

This should give a feasible solution to the problem. ie, "Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulfur dioxide"

"Environmental and nonenvironmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive" also is very compelling, howeve, I will go with D.

OA D. Good explanation. Kudos for you.

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 330

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 291

Re: A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2013, 21:14
Its a straight D. The thing with percentage questions is that if u pay close attention to the statistics, you can come up with an answer without reading the answer choices.

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 291

Re: A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal   [#permalink] 10 Oct 2013, 21:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by