It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 00:56

### 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 chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 33

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

Location: Los Angeles
A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2006, 21:53
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats that were given high doses of a new artificial sweetener developed cancer while all the others remained healthyy, the sweetener is not carcinogenic for human beings and ought to be approved for human consumption.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the chemical company's claim?

a) Chemicals that are carcinogenic for rats are usually also carcinogenic for other animals, such as guinea pigs, used in experiments.

b) The spontaneous incidence of cancer in this particular strain of rats is approximately one in 540.

c) Tests conducted on a certain strain of mouse show that, of 500 mice given a dose of sweetener similar to that given the rats, 53 developed cancer.

d) Certain chemicals that are carcinogenic for human beings have been shown not to be carcinogenic for rats.

e) The average life span of the strain of rat used in the experiment is 2 years; the chemical company terminated the experiment when the rats were 13 months old.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 474

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2006, 22:31
IMO its C.

There is close contest b/w C & D, but D is 180.

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 567

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Location: Munich,Germany
Re: CR from ETS code 55 (#10) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2006, 22:36
BARIDDLA wrote:
A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats that were given high doses of a new artificial sweetener developed cancer while all the others remained healthyy, the sweetener is not carcinogenic for human beings and ought to be approved for human consumption.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the chemical company's claim?

a) Chemicals that are carcinogenic for rats are usually also carcinogenic for other animals, such as guinea pigs, used in experiments.

b) The spontaneous incidence of cancer in this particular strain of rats is approximately one in 540.

c) Tests conducted on a certain strain of mouse show that, of 500 mice given a dose of sweetener similar to that given the rats, 53 developed cancer.

d) Certain chemicals that are carcinogenic for human beings have been shown not to be carcinogenic for rats.

e) The average life span of the strain of rat used in the experiment is 2 years; the chemical company terminated the experiment when the rats were 13 months old.

I'm with E here.

If the company terminated the experiment in just 13 months, with no effects on the mice, it couldbe possible that the sweetener would have had an effect had the company tested it for the full life span for these rats. Since no effects were shown in these months, the comany can claim that the sweetener isnt carconogenic.

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 572

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Location: NYC

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2006, 23:05
I will go with D..

I remember going through an example in OG.. Inference question, I believe.. they picked 180.. saying the opposite will hold true..

C makes sense since it says that the effects are differet for different species of animals.. but does not say anything about human being..
_________________

Success is my only option, failure is not -- Eminem

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 24 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

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

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2006, 23:12
(E) for me too

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 266

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Location: Chennai,India

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2006, 05:28
please corret where i went wrong.

the question is to show which supports the chem com's claim right!

then D will actually weaken it wont it???

by saying , the chemicals wont be good for humans n rats???

explain the 180 thing u r talking abt pls
_________________

vazlkaiye porkalam vazltuthan parkanum.... porkalam maralam porkalthan maruma

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 501

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 0

Location: MS

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2006, 08:26
razrulz wrote:
please corret where i went wrong.

the question is to show which supports the chem com's claim right!

then D will actually weaken it wont it???

by saying , the chemicals wont be good for humans n rats???

explain the 180 thing u r talking abt pls

yup agree with you razulz ..the question is asking for which one supports the claim.

so I will go with B .....as it shows that the chances are one in 500 .

what is OA ..?

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1050

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 0

Location: CA
Re: CR from ETS code 55 (#10) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2006, 17:03
I'll take B.

B says that the rats are no more likely to have cancer before the experiement, and the ratio did not change after the experiment was conducted.

I do believe D weakens the argument.
_________________

Don't be afraid to take a flying leap of faith.. If you risk nothing, than you gain nothing...

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 33

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

Location: Los Angeles

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2006, 17:47

I left it blank, taking a stand against the author of this question .

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 474

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Re: CR from ETS code 55 (#10) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2006, 19:16
TeHCM wrote:
I'll take B.

B says that the rats are no more likely to have cancer before the experiement, and the ratio did not change after the experiment was conducted.

I do believe D weakens the argument.

Thanks for nice explanation TeHCM

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 1016

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2006, 21:37
Good question !

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5201

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2006, 00:55
A is out of scope and D is the trap answer for those who misread the stem. That leaves us with (B).

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 103

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

Location: Barcelona

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2006, 15:10
B.
Rate of incidence of cancer before and after the test remained the same. hence the food item is safe.
_________________

...................................................................

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

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 73

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

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2006, 19:44
A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats that were given high doses of a new artificial sweetener developed cancer while all the others remained healthyy, the sweetener is not carcinogenic for human beings and ought to be approved for human consumption.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the chemical company's claim?

Question type: Strengthen
Conclusion: sweetner is not carcinogenic for HB and ought to be approved
Evidence: 1/520 rats when given high does of new sweetner dev. cancer, while others remained healthy.
Analysis: Looking for Additional evidence to support conclusion.

a) Chemicals that are carcinogenic for rats are usually also carcinogenic for other animals, such as guinea pigs, used in experiments.

irrelevant piece of information to argument

b) The spontaneous incidence of cancer in this particular strain of rats is approximately one in 540.

additional evidence, in line with the conclusion

c) Tests conducted on a certain strain of mouse show that, of 500 mice given a dose of sweetener similar to that given the rats, 53 developed cancer.

greater % of mic developed of cancer, what can u say about human...how about nothing

d) Certain chemicals that are carcinogenic for human beings have been shown not to be carcinogenic for rats.

weakens the conclusion, certain c C for HB => Not C for Rats, logical opposite => No C for HB => C for Rats

e) The average life span of the strain of rat used in the experiment is 2 years; the chemical company terminated the experiment when the rats were 13 months old

slightly weakens the conclusion

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

SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1543

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2006, 19:12
late but by POE, came up with B ....

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 214

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2006, 21:08
I thought none of the answer choices were right in the beginning. But, the explanation offered for (B) is good. I will go with (B) now. It is the best among the lot.
Good question. Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

20 Feb 2006, 21:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# A chemical company claims that, since only one of 520 rats

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.