Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 07:51 It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 07:51
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,778
Own Kudos:
810,789
 [3]
Given Kudos: 105,853
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: 109,778
Kudos: 810,789
 [3]
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply 31 Aug 2022, 01:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
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:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:48) correct 34% (01:53) wrong based on 271 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply observe the reactions of animals when subjected to various pain causing procedures. Since all humans agree that bad things should be avoided and most agree that pain is bad, there is no compelling reason to subject animals to any sort of scientific experimentation.

The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the argument above?

A. The first statement is a scientific fact offered to support the conclusion reached in the second statement.
B. The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion while the first statement is a baseless emotional appeal.
C. The second statement is the conclusion the argument is structured to lead to while the first statement contains unimportant information.
D. The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion while the first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion.
E. The first statement is a conclusion that the second statement is designed to undermine.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
dhs0079
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2022
Last visit: 12 Jan 2023
Posts: 22
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 22
Kudos: 14
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply 31 Aug 2022, 07:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think the correct answer option should be B.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
CagierStorm
User avatar
Joined: 08 Apr 2022
Last visit: 17 Nov 2022
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
2
 [2]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 4
Kudos: 2
 [2]
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply 31 Aug 2022, 08:16
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion : Animals suffer (because of use of keyword "surely")
Also second bolded statement is a conclusion because of the use of keyword "since" .

Hence option D is the correct choice
User avatar
winterschool
User avatar
Verbal Chat Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,891
Own Kudos:
1,665
Given Kudos: 1,681
Posts: 1,891
Kudos: 1,665
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply 01 Sep 2022, 07:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
easily eliminate B, C & E
B - first is not a baseless emotional appeal
C - first is not contain unimportant information
E - second is not designed to undermine
between A & D - first is not a scientific fact, so can eliminate A
Answer D
User avatar
dreamknight
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2020
Last visit: 13 Feb 2024
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
86
 [3]
Given Kudos: 86
Posts: 61
Kudos: 86
 [3]
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply Updated on: 08 Sep 2022, 02:41
Originally posted by dreamknight on 06 Sep 2022, 08:50.
Last edited by dreamknight on 08 Sep 2022, 02:41, edited 1 time in total.
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply observe the reactions of animals when subjected to various pain causing procedures. Since all humans agree that bad things should be avoided and most agree that pain is bad, there is no compelling reason to subject animals to any sort of scientific experimentation.

The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the argument above?

A. The first statement is a scientific fact offered to support the conclusion reached in the second statement. - wrong
The first statement is a scientific fact - False -> it is a intermediate conclusion of ethicist
Second is the conclusion - True ->

B. The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion while the first statement is a baseless emotional appeal. - wrong
The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion - True
first statement is a baseless emotional appeal - False -> Ethicist offers justification ('observe the reactions of animals'). It is also not an emotional appeal

C. The second statement is the conclusion the argument is structured to lead to while the first statement contains unimportant information. - wrong
The second statement is the conclusion the argument - True
first statement contains unimportant information - False -> The first is the intermediate conclusion and it is important.

D. The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion while the first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion. - Correct
The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion - True
first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion - True

E. The first statement is a conclusion that the second statement is designed to undermine. - Wrong
first statement is a conclusion - False -> Its a subsidiary conclusion
second statement is designed to undermine - False -> The second statement doesn't undermine the first statement. The first statement supports the conclusion which is the second statement
User avatar
rkhosla
User avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Last visit: 24 Nov 2023
Posts: 58
Own Kudos:
26
Given Kudos: 69
Posts: 58
Kudos: 26
Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply 07 Sep 2022, 23:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. The first statement is a scientific fact its not a fact, its a premise, authors opinionoffered to support the conclusion reached in the second statement.conclusion is reached in the second statement though
B. The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusionsecond statement is the main conclusion while the first statement is a baseless emotional appeal.too extreme, its basis/premise for the argument
C. The second statement is the conclusion the argument is structured to lead to while the first statement contains unimportant information.seond st is conclusion but first is the premise
D. The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion while the first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion.correct. the first statement can be a subsidary conclusion as its something that author has concluded
E. The first statement is a conclusion that the second statement is designed to undermine. both statements are on the same side of the argument. not undermining or contradicting


IMO D
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
501 posts
bhanu29
358 posts