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

 It is currently 17 Feb 2019, 20:17

### 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 February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Algebra Webinar

February 17, 2019

February 17, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this Free Algebra Webinar and learn how to master Inequalities and Absolute Value problems on GMAT.
• ### Valentine's day SALE is on! 25% off.

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

We don’t care what your relationship status this year - we love you just the way you are. AND we want you to crush the GMAT!

# Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2017
Posts: 13
Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 22 Jan 2019, 23:01
1
11
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:29) correct 28% (01:43) wrong based on 614 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy.  Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Which of the following would most likely support the data’s implication?

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.

Cannot decide between A and C. Can someone help explain it?

Originally posted by katelyntanglu on 30 Jul 2017, 05:39.
Last edited by Bunuel on 22 Jan 2019, 23:01, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question.
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Posts: 51
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 660 Q49 V32
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 06:03
1
A
Both bee and pollen of the flower are required for allergy as per premise. So if bee is not present the allergy reaction is not caused
Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2017
Posts: 36
GMAT 1: 710 Q45 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
GMAT 3: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.73
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 09:53
1
1
katelyntanglu wrote:
Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy.  Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy. Which of the following would most likely support the data’s implication?

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.

Cannot decide between A and C. Can someone help explain it?

This is an inference question.

We know that "research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy". Therefore, the answer is A since the premise states that the flower must be pollinated by a certain kind of bee

As for C, the passage does not state whether many cases have been observed only in the presence of a bee. Perck Pharma Corporation may have conducted studies with or without the presence of bees and still came to the conclusion that the bee must pollinate the flower for allergy to occur (for example, they could have found traces of the bee in the flowers). In inference question, we have to know something for a fact and C is an assumption. therefore, C is incorrect
Intern
Joined: 13 Aug 2011
Posts: 13
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.94
WE: Operations (Health Care)
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 12:04
1
1
katelyntanglu wrote:
Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy.  Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy. Which of the following would most likely support the data’s implication?

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.

Cannot decide between A and C. Can someone help explain it?

To eliminate C

The key word here is Many cases. Many does not mean all.
The conclusion says - in all cases the bee is required to pollinate the flower for the allergy
_________________

GMAT PREP1 - 720
GMAT PREP2 - 760
GMAT ExamPack1 - Exam 1 - 740
GMAT ExamPack1 - Exam 2 - 720
GMAT ExamPack2 - Exam 1 - 720
GMAT ExamPack2 - Exam 2 - 740

GMAT - 710

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1039
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2017, 07:07
Imo A
Between A and C A is better .
Moreover we have to carefully the words such as all,many and some for questions like these .
_________________

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2230
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2018, 06:26
jwang516 wrote:
We know that "research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy". Therefore, the answer is A since the premise states that the flower must be pollinated by a certain kind of bee

As for C, the passage does not state whether many cases have been observed only in the presence of a bee. Perck Pharma Corporation may have conducted studies with or without the presence of bees and still came to the conclusion that the bee must pollinate the flower for allergy to occur (for example, they could have found traces of the bee in the flowers). In inference question, we have to know something for a fact and C is an assumption. therefore, C is incorrect

Hi jwang516,
This is a strengthen question and not an inference question.

Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy. Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Type - strengthen
Boil it down - Allergy is caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.
We have 2 necessary conditions to cause allergy here-
1. Pollen of the certain flower
2. Only when the flower has been pollinated a certain kind of bee

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions - Correct - If the flower was not pollinated by that particular bee, then the pollen will not cause the allergy
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower. - Irrelevant
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee - Incorrect - we have no idea whether that pollen of that particular plant is involved here
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee - Incorrect
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present. - Incorrect - this weakens as pollen is not necessary

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Intern
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 21
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2018, 07:36
Skywalker18 wrote:
jwang516 wrote:
We know that "research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy". Therefore, the answer is A since the premise states that the flower must be pollinated by a certain kind of bee

As for C, the passage does not state whether many cases have been observed only in the presence of a bee. Perck Pharma Corporation may have conducted studies with or without the presence of bees and still came to the conclusion that the bee must pollinate the flower for allergy to occur (for example, they could have found traces of the bee in the flowers). In inference question, we have to know something for a fact and C is an assumption. therefore, C is incorrect

Hi jwang516,
This is a strengthen question and not an inference question.

Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy. Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Type - strengthen
Boil it down - Allergy is caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.
We have 2 necessary conditions to cause allergy here-
1. Pollen of the certain flower
2. Only when the flower has been pollinated a certain kind of bee

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions - Correct - If the flower was not pollinated by that particular bee, then the pollen will not cause the allergy
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower. - Irrelevant
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee - Incorrect - we have no idea whether that pollen of that particular plant is involved here
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee - Incorrect
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present. - Incorrect - this weakens as pollen is not necessary

Got stuck between A and D.

Argument says that if the flowers are not pollinated by the specific bees the flower would not grow on to become allergic.

Option 'D' says that if the allergy has not developed that means the flower has grown with the presence of THE bee.

Won't this reason support data's implication in the argument ?

Option 'A' seemed too straight forward almost like it's stating the same thing mentioned in the argument.

Can you please explain the flaw in my reasoning ?

Many Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8882
Location: Pune, India
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2018, 03:17
1
katelyntanglu wrote:
Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy.  Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Which of the following would most likely support the data’s implication?

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.

Cannot decide between A and C. Can someone help explain it?

Such questions are best explained by discussing the conditional statements framework:
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/1 ... tatements/

The argument tells us that as per the new research, the allergy happens ONLY IF a particular bee pollinates the flower.

Note how do we establish the ONLY IF relation:
Only if A, then B (Only if "that specific bee", then "allergy")
- B implies A (allergy implies that specific bee)
- Not A implies not B (No bee means no allergy)
If both the above points are established, then we can establish the "only if" relation. (Or if the only if relation is established, then the above two points are its implications)

Option (A) gives you "no bee means no allergy". This helps in establishing the only if relation.

(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee.
Option (D) gives you "not B implies not A". This does not help us in establishing the only if relation.

Let's look at other options too:
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
Doesn't help. We want to establish that when the bee pollinates, only then the allergy happens.

(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
"Many" is not good enough to establish the "only if bee, then allergy" case.

(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.
This questions the already established fact - this allergy is caused by the pollen of a particular flower.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2017
Posts: 325
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2019, 17:10
Is there difference between "only if" and "if" statements?

Previously I understood as below.
If A then B
means
Not B, not A.

Similar concept we use in "x led y".
No Y, no x.

But in case of only if A then B.
If not A, not B.

Please explain. I want to correct myself if I am wrong.

katelyntanglu wrote:
Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy.  Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Which of the following would most likely support the data’s implication?

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.

Cannot decide between A and C. Can someone help explain it?

Such questions are best explained by discussing the conditional statements framework:
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/1 ... tatements/

The argument tells us that as per the new research, the allergy happens ONLY IF a particular bee pollinates the flower.

Note how do we establish the ONLY IF relation:
Only if A, then B (Only if "that specific bee", then "allergy")
- B implies A (allergy implies that specific bee)
- Not A implies not B (No bee means no allergy)
If both the above points are established, then we can establish the "only if" relation. (Or if the only if relation is established, then the above two points are its implications)

Option (A) gives you "no bee means no allergy". This helps in establishing the only if relation.

(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee.
Option (D) gives you "not B implies not A". This does not help us in establishing the only if relation.

Let's look at other options too:
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
Doesn't help. We want to establish that when the bee pollinates, only then the allergy happens.

(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
"Many" is not good enough to establish the "only if bee, then allergy" case.

(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.
This questions the already established fact - this allergy is caused by the pollen of a particular flower.
Director
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 967
Location: India
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2019, 19:28
katelyntanglu wrote:
Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of allergy.  Their research confirms that not only is it caused by pollen of a certain flower, as it was thought, but also the flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Which of the following would most likely support the data’s implication?

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee
(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.

SO the question is
Allergy is caused by pollen of a certain flower and that flower has to be pollinated by a certain kind of bee to cause the allergy.

Since its an AND, both have to be present for the allergy to be present.

(A) In the absence of the bee, the pollen does not cause allergic reactions
Bee is removed, pollen wont cause allergy -> this supports the data.

(B) The bee has been shown to be a critical element in the reproduction of the particular flower.
reproduction -> OOS

(C) Many cases of the allergy have been observed only in the presence of the bee
Many cases is open ended, Allergy can or cannot happen. -> Out

(D) In cases in which the allergy does not develop, the flower will grow without the presence of the bee -> Eliminate
I was stuck here for a moment, This is a different case, not pertaining to the argument.
Here it is talking about the growth of the flower, we were concerned with its pollination by bee.
This just meant that some other bee is helping the flower to grow.

(E) The onset of the allergy is usually caused by the flower even if the pollen is not present.
This is irrelevant.
_________________

If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8882
Location: Pune, India
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2019, 22:35
1
gvij2017 wrote:
Is there difference between "only if" and "if" statements?

Previously I understood as below.
If A then B
means
Not B, not A.

Similar concept we use in "x led y".
No Y, no x.

But in case of only if A then B.
If not A, not B.

Please explain. I want to correct myself if I am wrong.

Check out this post: https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/1 ... tatements/
It talks about "if" and "only if" statements.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2017
Posts: 325
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2019, 23:03

gvij2017 wrote:
Is there difference between "only if" and "if" statements?

Previously I understood as below.
If A then B
means
Not B, not A.

Similar concept we use in "x led y".
No Y, no x.

But in case of only if A then B.
If not A, not B.

Please explain. I want to correct myself if I am wrong.

Check out this post: https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/1 ... tatements/
It talks about "if" and "only if" statements.
Re: Bio-chemists at Perck Pharma Corporation have discovered a new type of   [#permalink] 22 Jan 2019, 23:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by