|
|
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.
04 Jun 2022, 12:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
eyunni
Engineer1
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
Last visit: 07 May 2026
Posts: 195
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 457
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Booth (Chicago) (M$)
14 Jan 2024, 14:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
KarishmaB MartyMurray GMATNinja
Please provide feedback on my answer including the reasons to eliminate wrong ones. Thank You so much!
In 1960’s studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, although there was an increase in instances of “coping” behavior—such as submissive gestures and avoidance of dominant individuals—attacks did not become any more frequent. Therefore it is not likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as was seen in rats.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions.
The conclusion is about any species. This answer choice is narrow (applies to RH monkeys).
In addition, if RH shows coping mechanisms similar to those in uncrowded conditions, the answer choice does nothing to the argument.
(B) In the studies of rats, non-dominant individuals were found to increasingly avoid dominant individuals when the animals were in crowded conditions.
This choice talks about rats. The conclusion to be strengthened is for any species of monkeys. Irrelevant.
(C) Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.
Keep this and come back.
OK, now - As compared to other monkey species, if RH is aggressive in a wider range of scenarios and yet its aggression did not increase in crowded conditions, this means that the other monkeys won’t likely have a significant increase in aggression either. Strengthens. CORRECT
(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in significantly more attacks than the other monkeys were.
Weakens the conclusion.
(E) Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.
Weakens the conclusion.
Please provide feedback on my answer including the reasons to eliminate wrong ones. Thank You so much!
In 1960’s studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, although there was an increase in instances of “coping” behavior—such as submissive gestures and avoidance of dominant individuals—attacks did not become any more frequent. Therefore it is not likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as was seen in rats.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions.
The conclusion is about any species. This answer choice is narrow (applies to RH monkeys).
In addition, if RH shows coping mechanisms similar to those in uncrowded conditions, the answer choice does nothing to the argument.
(B) In the studies of rats, non-dominant individuals were found to increasingly avoid dominant individuals when the animals were in crowded conditions.
This choice talks about rats. The conclusion to be strengthened is for any species of monkeys. Irrelevant.
(C) Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.
Keep this and come back.
OK, now - As compared to other monkey species, if RH is aggressive in a wider range of scenarios and yet its aggression did not increase in crowded conditions, this means that the other monkeys won’t likely have a significant increase in aggression either. Strengthens. CORRECT
(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in significantly more attacks than the other monkeys were.
Weakens the conclusion.
(E) Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.
Weakens the conclusion.
11 Sep 2025, 10:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
This weaken question tests a crucial CR skill: recognizing when observed behavior might actually support the opposite of what the author concludes. Let me walk you through the logical approach.
Core Argument Analysis:
The author observes that crowded monkeys showed more "coping behaviors" (submissive gestures, avoidance) rather than increased attacks, unlike rats who became more aggressive. From this, the author concludes that crowding doesn't increase aggressive impulses in primates.
The Critical Reasoning Gap:
The author assumes: More coping behaviors = No aggressive impulses
But what if this assumption is flawed? What if coping behaviors are actually a response to aggressive impulses rather than evidence of their absence?
Evaluating the Answer Choices:
Let's quickly assess why B is correct:
Choice B: "Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them"
This completely flips the argument. If monkeys used coping behaviors to prevent aggression, then:
Aggressive impulses were present (they felt like fighting)
They just managed them differently than rats (through avoidance rather than attacks)
The monkey evidence actually supports that crowding increases aggressive impulses!
Why other choices fail:
A: Even naturally aggressive monkeys didn't attack more when crowded - doesn't help
C: The key is that coping behaviors increased with crowding, not whether they exist normally
D: Individual variation doesn't address the overall pattern
E: Artificial conditions don't change what the behavior pattern means
The Key Takeaway:
In CR Weaken questions, always question the author's interpretation of evidence. Here, the same evidence (increased coping behaviors) can actually prove the opposite conclusion when we understand why those behaviors occurred.
Want to master this question type systematically? Check out the complete solution on Neuron by e-GMAT, which reveals the advanced framework for spotting these "interpretation gaps" across all CR Weaken questions. You'll also discover how to pre-think weakeners effectively and avoid the 3 most common trap answer patterns. Access detailed solutions for official questions to build consistent accuracy.
The full Neuron solution includes a visualization technique that makes these abstract concepts crystal clear, plus practice with 5 similar official questions that test the same logical pattern.
Core Argument Analysis:
The author observes that crowded monkeys showed more "coping behaviors" (submissive gestures, avoidance) rather than increased attacks, unlike rats who became more aggressive. From this, the author concludes that crowding doesn't increase aggressive impulses in primates.
The Critical Reasoning Gap:
The author assumes: More coping behaviors = No aggressive impulses
But what if this assumption is flawed? What if coping behaviors are actually a response to aggressive impulses rather than evidence of their absence?
Evaluating the Answer Choices:
Let's quickly assess why B is correct:
Choice B: "Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them"
This completely flips the argument. If monkeys used coping behaviors to prevent aggression, then:
Aggressive impulses were present (they felt like fighting)
They just managed them differently than rats (through avoidance rather than attacks)
The monkey evidence actually supports that crowding increases aggressive impulses!
Why other choices fail:
A: Even naturally aggressive monkeys didn't attack more when crowded - doesn't help
C: The key is that coping behaviors increased with crowding, not whether they exist normally
D: Individual variation doesn't address the overall pattern
E: Artificial conditions don't change what the behavior pattern means
The Key Takeaway:
In CR Weaken questions, always question the author's interpretation of evidence. Here, the same evidence (increased coping behaviors) can actually prove the opposite conclusion when we understand why those behaviors occurred.
Want to master this question type systematically? Check out the complete solution on Neuron by e-GMAT, which reveals the advanced framework for spotting these "interpretation gaps" across all CR Weaken questions. You'll also discover how to pre-think weakeners effectively and avoid the 3 most common trap answer patterns. Access detailed solutions for official questions to build consistent accuracy.
The full Neuron solution includes a visualization technique that makes these abstract concepts crystal clear, plus practice with 5 similar official questions that test the same logical pattern.
