In order to control the deer population, a biologist has proposed inje

Question

In order to control the deer population, a biologist has proposed injecting female deer during breeding season with 10 milligrams of a hormone that would suppress fertility. Critics have charged that the proposal poses health risks to people who might eat the meat of treated deer and thereby ingest unsafe quantities of the hormone. The biologist has responded to these critics by pointing out that humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of the hormone a day without any adverse effects, and since no one would eat even one entire deer a day, the treatment would be safe.

The biologist’s response to critics of the proposal is based on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) People would be notified of the time when deer in their area were to be treated with the hormone. 
(B) The hormone that would be injected into the deer is chemically similar to hormones used in human contraceptives. 
(C) Hunting season for deer could be scheduled so that it would not coincide with breeding season. 
(D) The hormone in question does not occur naturally in the female deer that would be injected. 
(E) Most people do not consider deer meat to be part of their daily diet and eat it only on rare occasions.

hoangyen · Accepted Answer

D

The biologist assumes that the only source of the hormone is the injection.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. He does not assume this.

(B) No. This is irrelevant.

(C) No. He does not assume this.

(D) Yes.  If female deer already contain 9 milligrams of the hormone, then injecting them with 10 milligrams more would bring the hormone level to 19 milligrams. In this case, by eating less than one entire deer a day, one could surpass the safe level of 10 milligrams of the hormone per day.

(E) No. He does not assume this, and appropriately so. Even if deer meat is rarely eaten, it must be safe in those few times it is consumed.

Octobre · Answer

D
If she already had some the addition of the 2 would be above the 10

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo B

The argument talks about the adverse effect of the hormones as we do not know what harm do these hormones cause to humans .The assumption will somehow relate the hormone used in deer to the to the harm they cause in humans .Then only we can conclude about the the hormone being safe for humans if it has any effects on humans .
B is the correct assumption.

Sanjeetgujrall · Answer

IMO E because if people consider it as a daily diet then it breaks the conclusion

mahu101 · Answer

Imo D

biologist is assuming currently that the only source of hormone for a human is through the injection.

nitishmalagi · Answer

D is the answer IMO.
It would completely destroy the argument if negated.

kunalsinghNS · Answer

I will try to explain option B

The argument states that human can ingest 10 milligrams of the hormones a day but option B says that hormone is similar to the one in contraceptive but doesn't mention the quantity. hence, i rejected the argument based on this.

kunalsinghNS · Answer

I would like to explain option E -

If i say "Most of the people consider meat as a part of their daily diet and eat it occasionally" but we don't know about the quantity as one whole deer or a fraction of it.
hence, i rejected the Option E

kristieboa · Answer

My explanation is

(A) People would be notified of the time when deer in their area were to be treated with the hormone. 
→ The time to treat dear does not affect the conclusion. Incorrect
(B) The hormone that would be injected into the deer is chemically similar to hormones used in human contraceptives. 
→ “similar to hormones used in human” is not relevant.
(C) Hunting season for deer could be scheduled so that it would not coincide with breeding season. 
→ “Hunting season for deer could be scheduled” is not relevant
 (D)  The hormone in question does not occur naturally in the female deer that would be injected. 
Negate this: “The hormone in question occurs naturally in the female deer that would be injected.” Existing amount of hormone + 10 milli gr injected = exceeding amount → Attack the conclusion. CORRECT
(E) Most people do not consider deer meat to be part of their daily diet and eat it only on rare occasions. 
→ Easily to mistake. But this sentence says “deer meat” is not “daily diet” while the argument says “no one would eat one entire deer a day”. It’s different between “frequency of daily eating” and “eating quantity/day”. So it is not in our scope. Incorrect.

J2S2019 · Answer

D. 
It is the only option that tells that surplus of 10 mg hrm will be there if naturally this hrm is being generated in deer body.

Posted from my mobile device

GMATWhizTeam · Answer

Hi Given: 1. Per the proposal: 10 mg of hormones suppresses fertility in female deer 2. Per the critics: This poses health risk to people eating such meat because unsafe quantities of the hormone (10 mg) will go into the bodies of the people. 3. Per the biologists: 10 mg/per day safe for humans and no one can eat one whole deer in a day. Conclusion: Ingesting 10mg into the female deer whose meat is eaten by people is safe for those people. Pre-thinking: 1. The conclusion has been drawn on the basis of the information that 10 mg/per day is safe for humans and no one can eat one whole deer in one day. 2. What if the treated deer has some quantity of the hormone existing in its body naturally even before the treatment? That would up the total quantity of the hormone in the deer meat. 3. Assumption: The deer being treated does not already produce the hormone naturally. Choice B analysis The hormone that would be injected into the deer is chemically similar to hormones used in human contraceptives. The scope of the argument is whether treating the deer with 10mg hormone is safe for people eating such meat. This choice implies a similar hormone may find its way into the body of people eating the treated meat, from some other source , the contraceptives. This choice implies that a person might actually end up ingesting more than 10 mg of the chemicals in the deer hormone since the contraceptives also have similar chemicals. Hence, this choice, if anything weakens the conclusion. Incorrect CHoice Hope this helps.

VarshithaRS · Answer

@Bunnel, could you please help me understand how we are inferring that this hormone is already present in deer at 9 milligrams? It is not mentioned anywhere in the question. Additionally, considering the statement in the conclusion, "since no one would eat even one entire deer a day, the treatment would be safe," I am leaning towards choosing 'E' as my option instead of 'D'. Could you please help me understand how I can eliminate option 'E'?

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In order to control the deer population, a biologist has proposed inje

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In order to control the deer population, a biologist has proposed inje

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards