Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 17:06 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 17:06
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,390
Own Kudos:
778,370
 [4]
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,390
Kudos: 778,370
 [4]
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage 18 Sep 2025, 00:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:56) correct 45% (02:11) wrong based on 278 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.


­
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
quiaitaque
User avatar
Joined: 03 Sep 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 26
Kudos: 5
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage 21 Sep 2025, 05:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Bunuel,

Please verify my through process;

65% of Rats Exposed to Low Levels of SO^2 Toxins > Died of Liver Disorder
90% of All Rats who Died of Liver Disorder > Not Exposed to Environmental Toxins (SO^2)

A - Is not Relevant towards the Explanation
B - Too Extreme & Not Evidenced through the Details
C - Opposite to the Passage Text
D - Can be the only feasible explanation (Since 35% of the rats were exposed to SO^2)
E - "Most" : Doesnt fit the passage as some rats do suffer

Therefore; Answer - D



Bunuel
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.


­
Show more
User avatar
quiaitaque
User avatar
Joined: 03 Sep 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 26
Kudos: 5
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage 21 Sep 2025, 06:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Also is there a paradox here?.
If so could lyou explain how "D" explains that paradox?
quiaitaque
Hi Bunuel,

Please verify my through process;

65% of Rats Exposed to Low Levels of SO^2 Toxins > Died of Liver Disorder
90% of All Rats who Died of Liver Disorder > Not Exposed to Environmental Toxins (SO^2)

A - Is not Relevant towards the Explanation
B - Too Extreme & Not Evidenced through the Details
C - Opposite to the Passage Text
D - Can be the only feasible explanation (Since 35% of the rats were exposed to SO^2)
E - "Most" : Doesnt fit the passage as some rats do suffer

Therefore; Answer - D




Show more
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,564
 [2]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,564
 [2]
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage 21 Sep 2025, 22:03
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The word "paradox" gets used rather loosely in CR questions. Usually they will ask us to resolve an "apparent paradox"--in other words, something that SEEMS contradictory but isn't. After all, the statements are all true, so they can't present a real paradox. Then they'd be describing something contradictory or impossible, which would mean that they COULDN'T all be true!

In this case, the seeming contradiction is that we found a substance that seems to cause rats to die of liver disorder at a high rate. But when we look at deaths overall, neither this substance nor any other environmental toxin seems to be the cause. Really, that's not much of a contradiction. It's like saying that most people attacked by gorillas die, but most people who die were not attacked by wildlife. So what? Sadly, there are lots of ways to die, and most of us will not have the honor of going by way of a gorilla. That's what D gets at. If SO2 is not very common (at least in the environment of the rats in the study), then the two statistics aren't surprising or contradictory at all.
quiaitaque
Bunuel
Also is there a paradox here?.
If so could lyou explain how "D" explains that paradox?

Show more
User avatar
nhauyen837
User avatar
Joined: 23 Feb 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 3
Kudos: 3
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage 25 Sep 2025, 20:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.


­
Show more

65% of "rats exposed to sulfur dioxide" died -> Since 65% is quite a large part, "rats exposed to sulfur dioxide" would account for a large portion of rats that died, IF "rats exposed to sulfur dioxide" accounted for a large portion of the entire group.

HOWEVER, only 10% of the dead rats were exposed to sulfur dioxide, MEANING "rats exposed to sulfur dioxide" only accounted for a small portion of the entire group.

Hence, (D).
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,390
Own Kudos:
778,370
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,390
Kudos: 778,370
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage 05 Oct 2025, 17:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.
Show more



KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



Here's another study to ponder, and the stem alerts us to the fact that we need to find a plausible explanation for the statistics cited. That alone suggests that the stats are puzzling, or at least a bit unusual, which is reinforced by the contrast Keyword however in the final sentence. So what's going on in this one? We have a significant number of rats dying of liver disorder after being exposed to sulfur dioxide, but most of the rats who died of liver disorder were not exposed to any environmental toxins. This is not unlike what we've seen previously: a situation in which what seems like the same groups are actually not. Specifically, you should have realized immediately that the 65% and the 90% figures refer to two different groups, and thus that there is no discrepancy in the statistics. The 65% figure represents all rats exposed to sulfur dioxide; 90% represents the percentage of all rats that died of liver disorder. (D) points this out. If only a small number of rats were exposed to sulfur dioxide, then it's not surprising that 90% of the rats that died of liver damage died of something other than sulfur dioxide exposure. After all, only a small number of them were exposed to sulfur dioxide in the first place. (D) wins.

(A) The exclusivity of causes of liver damage is irrelevant to this study. Any of the rats could have had both causes, but only one seriously enough to cause death.

(B) explains nothing. If there is only one cause of liver disease in rats, then what killed the rats that were not exposed?

(C) As for this one, why did 65% of the exposed rats die, if environmental toxins are not very dangerous? This seems counterintuitive, and so it can't possibly help to explain the statistics.

(E) says basically the same thing as (C), with different wording. It's wrong for the same reason— namely, that it contradicts the evidence. If 65% of the rats exposed to low levels of sulfur dioxide died, then most rats probably will suffer from such exposure.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts