Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
02 Mar 2024, 07:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
67% (01:53) correct
33%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 722
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Entomologist: Beginning around 2006, many honeybee colonies started dying mysteriously, a condition known as collapse disorder. Bee autopsies revealed a virus called IAPV in almost all colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder, but in only one apparently healthy colony. Thus, IAPV must be the cause of the disorder.
In order to assess the strength of the entomologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
A. Whether the apparently healthy colony infected with IAPV was also infected with any other viruses
B. By what means IAPV has been spreading between honeybee colonies since 2006
C. To what extent symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV
D. Whether scientists are able to detect IAPV in honeybee colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder without conducting bee autopsies
E. Which symptoms of colony collapse disorder were observed among the colonies in which IAPV was detected
In order to assess the strength of the entomologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
A. Whether the apparently healthy colony infected with IAPV was also infected with any other viruses
B. By what means IAPV has been spreading between honeybee colonies since 2006
C. To what extent symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV
D. Whether scientists are able to detect IAPV in honeybee colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder without conducting bee autopsies
E. Which symptoms of colony collapse disorder were observed among the colonies in which IAPV was detected
Need more Tests to Practice?
GMAT Club Tests give expert solutions for every question in full and sectional GMAT Focus mocks.
Learn more →
02 Mar 2024, 08:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Entomologist: Beginning around 2006, many honeybee colonies started dying mysteriously, a condition known as collapse disorder. Bee autopsies revealed a virus called IAPV in almost all colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder, but in only one apparently healthy colony. Thus, IAPV must be the cause of the disorder.
The entomologist has arrived at the following conclusion:
IAPV must be the cause of the disorder
The support for the conclusion is the following:
Bee autopsies revealed a virus called IAPV in almost all colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder, but in only one apparently healthy colony.
We see that the entomologist has reasoned that, since there is a correlation between the presence of IAPV and symptoms of colony collapse disorder, IAPV must be the cause of the disorder.
In order to assess the strength of the entomologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
This is an Evaluate question. So, the correct answer will be the one such that different answers to the question weaken or strengthen the argument.
A. Whether the apparently healthy colony infected with IAPV was also infected with any other viruses
Knowing this won't help with assesing the strength of the argument.
After all, knowing whether the healthy colony was infected with other viruses would not help with understanding why that colony is healthy or whether IAPV caused the other colonies to experience colony collapse disorder. The healthy colongy could be infected with many or no other viruses and that fact about other viruses would not indicate whether one particular virus, IAPV, causes colony collapse disorder.
Eliminate.
B. By what means IAPV has been spreading between honeybee colonies since 2006
Knowing this won't help with assessing the strength of the argument.
After all, knowing the means by which IAPV has been spreading doesn't help with understanding whether it is the cause of colony collapse disorder. Regardless of how it spreads, it may or may not be the cause.
Eliminate.
C. To what extent symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV
Knowing this would help with assessing the strength of the argument.
After all, if the answer is that symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies much more susceptible to infection by IAPV, then the relationship between IAPV and colony collapse disorder may not be that IAPV causes colony collapse disorder. In that case, it could instead be that colony collapse disorder causes infection by IAPV.
So, information that symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies much more susceptible to infection by IAPV would weaken the argument.
On the other hand, if the answer is that symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder do not make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV, then that information strengthens the argument. After all, that information would help to confirm that colony collapse disorder does not cause IAPV infection and thus provide more reason to believe that what's going on is that IAPV causes colony collapse disorder.
Keep.
D. Whether scientists are able to detect IAPV in honeybee colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder without conducting bee autopsies
Knowing this is irrelevant to determining whether IAPV actually causes colony collapse disorder.
After all, regardless of whether scientists have to conduct autopsides to detect IAPV, it still may or may not cause colony collapse disorder since information on whether autopsies are necessary would not clearly indicate whether the virus causes the disorder.
Eliminate.
E. Which symptoms of colony collapse disorder were observed among the colonies in which IAPV was detected
Information on which symptoms were detected doesn't affect the strength of the argument since, regardless of which symtoms were detected, some symptoms were detected. So, there is reason to believe the colonies were experiencing colony collapse disorder, and as long as there's goo reason to believe that they were experiencing colony collapse disorder, the argument works.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
The entomologist has arrived at the following conclusion:
IAPV must be the cause of the disorder
The support for the conclusion is the following:
Bee autopsies revealed a virus called IAPV in almost all colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder, but in only one apparently healthy colony.
We see that the entomologist has reasoned that, since there is a correlation between the presence of IAPV and symptoms of colony collapse disorder, IAPV must be the cause of the disorder.
In order to assess the strength of the entomologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
This is an Evaluate question. So, the correct answer will be the one such that different answers to the question weaken or strengthen the argument.
A. Whether the apparently healthy colony infected with IAPV was also infected with any other viruses
Knowing this won't help with assesing the strength of the argument.
After all, knowing whether the healthy colony was infected with other viruses would not help with understanding why that colony is healthy or whether IAPV caused the other colonies to experience colony collapse disorder. The healthy colongy could be infected with many or no other viruses and that fact about other viruses would not indicate whether one particular virus, IAPV, causes colony collapse disorder.
Eliminate.
B. By what means IAPV has been spreading between honeybee colonies since 2006
Knowing this won't help with assessing the strength of the argument.
After all, knowing the means by which IAPV has been spreading doesn't help with understanding whether it is the cause of colony collapse disorder. Regardless of how it spreads, it may or may not be the cause.
Eliminate.
C. To what extent symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV
Knowing this would help with assessing the strength of the argument.
After all, if the answer is that symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies much more susceptible to infection by IAPV, then the relationship between IAPV and colony collapse disorder may not be that IAPV causes colony collapse disorder. In that case, it could instead be that colony collapse disorder causes infection by IAPV.
So, information that symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies much more susceptible to infection by IAPV would weaken the argument.
On the other hand, if the answer is that symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder do not make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV, then that information strengthens the argument. After all, that information would help to confirm that colony collapse disorder does not cause IAPV infection and thus provide more reason to believe that what's going on is that IAPV causes colony collapse disorder.
Keep.
D. Whether scientists are able to detect IAPV in honeybee colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder without conducting bee autopsies
Knowing this is irrelevant to determining whether IAPV actually causes colony collapse disorder.
After all, regardless of whether scientists have to conduct autopsides to detect IAPV, it still may or may not cause colony collapse disorder since information on whether autopsies are necessary would not clearly indicate whether the virus causes the disorder.
Eliminate.
E. Which symptoms of colony collapse disorder were observed among the colonies in which IAPV was detected
Information on which symptoms were detected doesn't affect the strength of the argument since, regardless of which symtoms were detected, some symptoms were detected. So, there is reason to believe the colonies were experiencing colony collapse disorder, and as long as there's goo reason to believe that they were experiencing colony collapse disorder, the argument works.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
07 Mar 2024, 09:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Summary:
Many colonies facing collapse disorder -> almost all of those colonies had IPV -> IPV must be the cause
Prethinking:
IPV found after of Collapse disorder doesn't necesscarily mean IPV caused it. we need to find reasons that breaks this link.
we can think of real world scenarios like this:
It can be something that cause Collapse disorder that in turn caused IPV , or perhaps when the bees were about to die (weak) they contracted IPV
There is only one option that matches this prethinking : C
Prethinking will save time by helping us home in on the correct option without any delay ( rereading other options etc. ) like in Quants problems.
Option A does match this too, but other viruses may be present in bess and yet not harm the Bees ( or may not be related to the disorder at all )
BUT
If IPV is proven to be more likely to affect bees that already have Collapse disorder ( symptoms ) - this completely destroys the basis of argument
Many colonies facing collapse disorder -> almost all of those colonies had IPV -> IPV must be the cause
Prethinking:
IPV found after of Collapse disorder doesn't necesscarily mean IPV caused it. we need to find reasons that breaks this link.
we can think of real world scenarios like this:
It can be something that cause Collapse disorder that in turn caused IPV , or perhaps when the bees were about to die (weak) they contracted IPV
There is only one option that matches this prethinking : C
Prethinking will save time by helping us home in on the correct option without any delay ( rereading other options etc. ) like in Quants problems.
Option A does match this too, but other viruses may be present in bess and yet not harm the Bees ( or may not be related to the disorder at all )
BUT
If IPV is proven to be more likely to affect bees that already have Collapse disorder ( symptoms ) - this completely destroys the basis of argument
