Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 10:31

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1511
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 629 [0], given: 6

Re: CR a must to try [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2010, 20:24
what a question......took a long time to understand....my pick is D.
Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 96
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1

Re: CR a must to try [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 00:30
Agree on D.
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1197 [0], given: 2

Re: CR - Viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2011, 09:07
dwivedys wrote:
noboru wrote:
Im afraid to say that OA is B.

I get D at the following link
cr-a-must-to-try-30855.html?hilit=In%20response%20to%20viral%20infection,#p209908

I have check it in other source and OA was D.
Thanks.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 86
Schools: Thunderbird '15
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 8

Re: CR - Viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2011, 01:06
Must be D
Senior Manager
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 297
Location: United States (FL)
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.65
WE: Project Management (Real Estate)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 56

Re: CR - Viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2011, 12:54
I picked D...Very hard to understand the argument quickly...it took me a while to respond.
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 200
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 5

Re: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2012, 15:21
I have chosen D for this question:

This is a causal relationship: antibodies causes keratitis

To strengthen this argument, we can say that no antibodies results in no keratitis

A. We are not concerned about other types of viruses

B. We are not concerned about how quickly the mice contract herpes

C. This would potentially weaken the argument because the level of antibodies is the same, yet these mice do not develop keratitis.

D. This is the correct answer. A situation where mice do need develop antibodies leads to no development of keratitis.

E. This weakens the argument because it seems like herpesvirus is not the only source of developing keratitis.
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 67 [1] , given: 11

In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 09:58
1
KUDOS
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with a herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.

Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists’ hypothesis?

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice.
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice.
C. Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis.
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis.
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop keratitis.

_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 85
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 4

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 10:05
We are asked to strengthen the argument that k is caused by antibodies of h

ankit0411 wrote:
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with a herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.

Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists’ hypothesis?

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. irrelevant to the question at hand
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. irrelevant to the question at hand
C. Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. doesnt strengthen the argument gives us additional information
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. strengthens the argument, because if antibodies are not produces then they dont bind with the cells and thus no k.
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop keratitis.additional info

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 508
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 289 [0], given: 269

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 04:49
+1 D

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. (Then why just eyes are affected, eliminate)
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. (This weakens the hypothesis)
C. Mice that are infected with a herpes virus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. (Irrelevant)
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. (This is our answer, since they do not develop antibodies they do not develop keratitis)
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpes virus can sometimes develop keratitis. (This weakens the hypothesis)

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 48
Location: India
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 17

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 05:40
ankit0411 wrote:
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with a herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.

Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists’ hypothesis?

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. This is irrelevant
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. This kinda weakens

C. Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. Same as B

D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. Supports
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop keratitis.This is irrelevant

Okay...Rocky to Rocky..!
_________________

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 11

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 07:47
hermit84 wrote:
ankit0411 wrote:
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with a herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.

Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists’ hypothesis?

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. This is irrelevant
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. This kinda weakens

C. Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. Same as B

D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. Supports
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop keratitis.This is irrelevant

Okay...Rocky to Rocky..!

Yea Rocky :D , we did it ! hah
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 4

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2012, 11:26
getgyan wrote:
+1 D

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. (Then why just eyes are affected, eliminate)
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. (This weakens the hypothesis)
C. Mice that are infected with a herpes virus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. (Irrelevant)
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. (This is our answer, since they do not develop antibodies they do not develop keratitis)
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpes virus can sometimes develop keratitis. (This weakens the hypothesis)

Hey Gyan!! Nice explanation. I had a tough time understanding this question. Finally my teacher helped me. But I was still confused and could not explain him my problem.
I decoded this prob in the following manner:-

Virus hits mouse - mouse develops antibody (antibody hooking onto protein on virus destroys virus). Now, protein on eye = protein on (herpes)virus. (So, because an antibody might get confused between the two - this was terrific comprehension of the hypothesis) the antibody (hooking onto protein on eye ) leads to keratitis.
Hence, herpesvirus - antibody - keratitis.

My doubt is that how can we strengthen this by saying that (there are mice => some mice - not all - and so this is sometimes and not always) when there is no antibody, there is no keratitis. How does this prove scientists' hypo?
It only mentions that there are mice (can be 4 out of 100) that do not develop antibodies and don't get keratitis. But there can surely be some mice (96) who develop antibodies but don't catch keratitis. Hence, how does D prove scientists' hypo?
I have boldfaced "prove" because I want to ask you do we need to prove that whenever any antibody is formed, keratitis will develop - always?

Because D leaves room for a possibility that 96 mice might develop antibody but still not catch keratitis. Hence not proved. XXXXX

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 67 [2] , given: 11

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2012, 01:01
2
KUDOS
talismaaniac wrote:
getgyan wrote:
+1 D

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. (Then why just eyes are affected, eliminate)
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. (This weakens the hypothesis)
C. Mice that are infected with a herpes virus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. (Irrelevant)
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. (This is our answer, since they do not develop antibodies they do not develop keratitis)
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpes virus can sometimes develop keratitis. (This weakens the hypothesis)

Hey Gyan!! Nice explanation. I had a tough time understanding this question. Finally my teacher helped me. But I was still confused and could not explain him my problem.
I decoded this prob in the following manner:-

Virus hits mouse - mouse develops antibody (antibody hooking onto protein on virus destroys virus). Now, protein on eye = protein on (herpes)virus. (So, because an antibody might get confused between the two - this was terrific comprehension of the hypothesis) the antibody (hooking onto protein on eye ) leads to keratitis.
Hence, herpesvirus - antibody - keratitis.

My doubt is that how can we strengthen this by saying that (there are mice => some mice - not all - and so this is sometimes and not always) when there is no antibody, there is no keratitis. How does this prove scientists' hypo?
It only mentions that there are mice (can be 4 out of 100) that do not develop antibodies and don't get keratitis. But there can surely be some mice (96) who develop antibodies but don't catch keratitis. Hence, how does D prove scientists' hypo?
I have boldfaced "prove" because I want to ask you do we need to prove that whenever any antibody is formed, keratitis will develop - always?

Because D leaves room for a possibility that 96 mice might develop antibody but still not catch keratitis. Hence not proved. XXXXX

This is a typical strengthen cause and effect problem -

We need to show that only X can lead to the result Y or eliminate any other alternate causes that lead to result Y.

If the cause does not occur then the result does not occur ; Hence , If the cause is there the result is also there.

thanks,
Ankit
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 4

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2012, 02:27
ankit0411 wrote:
talismaaniac wrote:
getgyan wrote:
+1 D

A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice. (Then why just eyes are affected, eliminate)
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice. (This weakens the hypothesis)
C. Mice that are infected with a herpes virus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis. (Irrelevant)
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis. (This is our answer, since they do not develop antibodies they do not develop keratitis)
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpes virus can sometimes develop keratitis. (This weakens the hypothesis)

Hey Gyan!! Nice explanation. I had a tough time understanding this question. Finally my teacher helped me. But I was still confused and could not explain him my problem.
I decoded this prob in the following manner:-

Virus hits mouse - mouse develops antibody (antibody hooking onto protein on virus destroys virus). Now, protein on eye = protein on (herpes)virus. (So, because an antibody might get confused between the two - this was terrific comprehension of the hypothesis) the antibody (hooking onto protein on eye ) leads to keratitis.
Hence, herpesvirus - antibody - keratitis.

My doubt is that how can we strengthen this by saying that (there are mice => some mice - not all - and so this is sometimes and not always) when there is no antibody, there is no keratitis. How does this prove scientists' hypo?
It only mentions that there are mice (can be 4 out of 100) that do not develop antibodies and don't get keratitis. But there can surely be some mice (96) who develop antibodies but don't catch keratitis. Hence, how does D prove scientists' hypo?
I have boldfaced "prove" because I want to ask you do we need to prove that whenever any antibody is formed, keratitis will develop - always?

Because D leaves room for a possibility that 96 mice might develop antibody but still not catch keratitis. Hence not proved. XXXXX

This is a typical strengthen cause and effect problem -

We need to show that only X can lead to the result Y or eliminate any other alternate causes that lead to result Y.

If the cause does not occur then the result does not occur ; Hence , If the cause is there the result is also there.

thanks,
Ankit

Thanks Ankit!! This means that we do not need to prove something, as long as we can even mildly support the conclusion. i.e. strengthen doesn't mean to prove something, and that is why as you wrote "to prove that X leads to Y, a statement such as there was no X and there was no Y should suffice."
and so, we should not try to mathematically solve to look out for a possibility (created by our mind) that the statement does not rule out a fact that there was no X, but there was Y - i am trying to break down the statement to find a new possibility that the statement does not deny, but which is not explicitly stated (as I explained this with 96-4 mice example).

I hope I could explain you my thought process. Thanks!!
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 11

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2012, 02:31
Hey Gyan!! Nice explanation. I had a tough time understanding this question. Finally my teacher helped me. But I was still confused and could not explain him my problem.
I decoded this prob in the following manner:-

Virus hits mouse - mouse develops antibody (antibody hooking onto protein on virus destroys virus). Now, protein on eye = protein on (herpes)virus. (So, because an antibody might get confused between the two - this was terrific comprehension of the hypothesis) the antibody (hooking onto protein on eye ) leads to keratitis.
Hence, herpesvirus - antibody - keratitis.

My doubt is that how can we strengthen this by saying that (there are mice => some mice - not all - and so this is sometimes and not always) when there is no antibody, there is no keratitis. How does this prove scientists' hypo?
It only mentions that there are mice (can be 4 out of 100) that do not develop antibodies and don't get keratitis. But there can surely be some mice (96) who develop antibodies but don't catch keratitis. Hence, how does D prove scientists' hypo?
I have boldfaced "prove" because I want to ask you do we need to prove that whenever any antibody is formed, keratitis will develop - always?

Because D leaves room for a possibility that 96 mice might develop antibody but still not catch keratitis. Hence not proved. XXXXX

This is a typical strengthen cause and effect problem -

We need to show that only X can lead to the result Y or eliminate any other alternate causes that lead to result Y.

If the cause does not occur then the result does not occur ; Hence , If the cause is there the result is also there.

thanks,
Ankit[/quote]

Thanks Ankit!! This means that we do not need to prove something, as long as we can even mildly support the conclusion. i.e. strengthen doesn't mean to prove something, and that is why as you wrote "to prove that X leads to Y, a statement such as there was no X and there was no Y should suffice."
and so, we should not try to mathematically solve to look out for a possibility (created by our mind) that the statement does not rule out a fact that there was no X, but there was Y - i am trying to break down the statement to find a new possibility that the statement does not deny, but which is not explicitly stated (as I explained this with 96-4 mice example).

I hope I could explain you my thought process. Thanks!![/quote]

you don't need to work your way out of what the argument says - the answers might have something new information but they would totally relate to the argument at hand.

So just keep the below points in mind for Causal type questions :

Causality and Strengthen Question

• Eliminate alternate causes
• Show that when the cause occurs, effect occurs
• Show that when the effect is there, cause has occurred
• Show that reverse is not true
• Show that statistical data behind the cause effect conclusion is correct
• Show that when cause doesn’t occur, effect doesn’t occur

Hope this helps !

Ankit
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 4

Re: In response to viral infection [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2012, 02:36
ankit0411 wrote:

you don't need to work your way out of what the argument says - the answers might have something new information but they would totally relate to the argument at hand.

So just keep the below points in mind for Causal type questions :

Causality and Strengthen Question

• Eliminate alternate causes
• Show that when the cause occurs, effect occurs
• Show that when the effect is there, cause has occurred
• Show that reverse is not true
• Show that statistical data behind the cause effect conclusion is correct
• Show that when cause doesn’t occur, effect doesn’t occur

Hope this helps !

Ankit

bingo!! That clearly explains it
Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2012
Posts: 62
Schools: NTU '16 (A)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 39

Re: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2013, 11:29
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by
binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with a herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative
disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble
those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies
to herpesvirus.

Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists’ hypothesis?

(A) Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in various organs of mice.
(B) There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice
contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice.
(C) Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as
infected mice that do develop keratitis.
(D) There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections, and these mice
survive these infections without ever developing keratitis.
(E) Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop keratitis.

We are asked to support the scientists hypothesis that keratitis occurs because of the similarity b/w herpes virus and the cells of the eye. This is a C&E argument of the form X led to Y. X- antibodies that attacked the eye cells because of their similarity to the herpes virus cells. Y-keratits. So to support this , a case when X did not happen Y also did not happen will serve as a supporter. So choice D.

Choice E gives us information to suggest that some mice can develop keratits without having herpes. This does not seem to be a weakener,even though the official explanation suggests that this is a mild weakener. The conclusion is specifically talking about these types of keratits not cases of keratits in general. Thats why i feel that E isn't a weakener.

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 150
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 24

Re: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2013, 10:04
Observe the cause and effect relationship in the conclusion of the argument.

Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.

antibodies to herpesvirus cause keratitis

According to the principles of cause-effect relationship,
If Cause --> Effect
Then No effect --> No cause

In order to support the conclusion, use the above principle and show that in cases with no keratitis, there are no antibodies developed within the bodies of mice. Hence choice D is the best.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 2005
Concentration: Finance
Followers: 68

Kudos [?]: 643 [0], given: 355

Re: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2014, 14:40
Pqhai, would you like to solve this one with your elegant approach?

Cheers!
J
Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 597
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 356 [0], given: 200

In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2015, 07:07
Classical causality illustrated in the Strengthen question types in the CR Bible.

--> Show that when the cause doesn't occur, the effect doesn't occur

Causality in that argument: antibodies --> Proteins on the surface....

(D) no antiibodies - no proteins.....
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice   [#permalink] 27 Feb 2015, 07:07

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 66 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A certain viral infection 0 17 Mar 2017, 02:30
2 In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice 2 19 Aug 2015, 18:46
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice 0 24 Jul 2013, 11:29
1 A certain viral infection is widespread among children, and 10 19 Apr 2013, 17:03
In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice 0 24 Mar 2012, 15:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by