|
|
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.
avigutman
With the new strain of herpesvirus - is
(Q1) a new type of antibody being produced or the same anti-body ?
I don't think we can say
---------------------------------------------------------------
(Q2) Is the same mechanism happening with the new strain of herpesvirus ? An antibody (new antibody or old anti-body), just binds itself onto the proteins of the new strain of herpesvirus ?
I would argue, we cant say
Quote:
With the new strain of herpesvirus - is
(Q1) a new type of antibody being produced or the same anti-body ?
I don't think we can say
---------------------------------------------------------------
(Q2) Is the same mechanism happening with the new strain of herpesvirus ? An antibody (new antibody or old anti-body), just binds itself onto the proteins of the new strain of herpesvirus ?
I would argue, we cant say
19 Jan 2023, 12:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official OA
Step 1: Identify the Question
The words support the scientists’ reasoning in the question stem indicate that this is a Strengthen the Argument question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
Mice w/ virus: ABs bind to P, destroy virus
Mice w/ HV get ker. (eye disease)
P in eye similar to P in HV
© ker. caused by ABs
This argument describes a somewhat complex line of reasoning related to viral infections in mice. Normally, antibodies (ABs) bind to proteins (P) to destroy a virus. In one specific virus, herpesvirus (HV), mice develop a complication called keratitis. The conclusion of the argument explains why this occurs. Scientists believe that antibodies bind to the proteins in the mice’s eyes, similar to how they would bind to the proteins on the herpesvirus, and that this causes keratitis.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Strengthen the Argument questions, the right answer will make the conclusion more likely to be correct. The conclusion of this argument attempts to explain why mice with herpesvirus develop keratitis. The right answer should suggest that this explanation is correct, either by offering additional evidence for the explanation, or by disproving alternative explanations.
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This answer choice does not strengthen the argument unless further assumptions are made. If there were evidence that antibodies frequently bond to proteins on the surface of organs, and that this bonding frequently causes disease in mice, this evidence would strengthen the argument. However, just knowing that there are other viruses with surface proteins that are similar to other organs does not create a link between keratitis and HV antibodies.
(B) This answer choice actually suggests that antibodies and keratitis are not linked, which weakens the scientists’ conclusion.
(C) CORRECT. If mice were infected with a different strain of herpesvirus, with different proteins, and did not develop keratitis, the keratitis was probably caused by the presence of specific proteins in the original herpesvirus. Since this reasoning is part of the scientists’ conclusion, this answer choice strengthens the argument.
(D) The conclusion states specifically that these cases of keratitis—that is, the cases in herpesvirus-infected mice—are caused by antibodies. Other cases of herpesvirus are not relevant to the argument.
(E) The conclusion deals with the cause of keratitis, not the cause of herpesvirus. Without knowing whether the mice described in this answer choice develop keratitis, they can’t be used as evidence for the conclusion.
Step 1: Identify the Question
The words support the scientists’ reasoning in the question stem indicate that this is a Strengthen the Argument question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
Mice w/ virus: ABs bind to P, destroy virus
Mice w/ HV get ker. (eye disease)
P in eye similar to P in HV
© ker. caused by ABs
This argument describes a somewhat complex line of reasoning related to viral infections in mice. Normally, antibodies (ABs) bind to proteins (P) to destroy a virus. In one specific virus, herpesvirus (HV), mice develop a complication called keratitis. The conclusion of the argument explains why this occurs. Scientists believe that antibodies bind to the proteins in the mice’s eyes, similar to how they would bind to the proteins on the herpesvirus, and that this causes keratitis.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Strengthen the Argument questions, the right answer will make the conclusion more likely to be correct. The conclusion of this argument attempts to explain why mice with herpesvirus develop keratitis. The right answer should suggest that this explanation is correct, either by offering additional evidence for the explanation, or by disproving alternative explanations.
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This answer choice does not strengthen the argument unless further assumptions are made. If there were evidence that antibodies frequently bond to proteins on the surface of organs, and that this bonding frequently causes disease in mice, this evidence would strengthen the argument. However, just knowing that there are other viruses with surface proteins that are similar to other organs does not create a link between keratitis and HV antibodies.
(B) This answer choice actually suggests that antibodies and keratitis are not linked, which weakens the scientists’ conclusion.
(C) CORRECT. If mice were infected with a different strain of herpesvirus, with different proteins, and did not develop keratitis, the keratitis was probably caused by the presence of specific proteins in the original herpesvirus. Since this reasoning is part of the scientists’ conclusion, this answer choice strengthens the argument.
(D) The conclusion states specifically that these cases of keratitis—that is, the cases in herpesvirus-infected mice—are caused by antibodies. Other cases of herpesvirus are not relevant to the argument.
(E) The conclusion deals with the cause of keratitis, not the cause of herpesvirus. Without knowing whether the mice described in this answer choice develop keratitis, they can’t be used as evidence for the conclusion.
avigutman
Expert
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert reply
19 Jan 2023, 13:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
jabhatta2
jabhatta2
Quote:
This sentence implies that, in general, proteins may or may not resemble one another. From answer choice (C) we learn that the new strain has "different surface proteins". Combine all of that with this sentence:
Quote:
So, would the new strain cause the immune systems to produce the same antibodies, or new antibodies?
Well, if the antibodies are to bind to proteins on the surface of the virus, and the new strain has "different surface proteins", then I think it's safe to infer that the new antibodies are going to be different antibodies.
To your second question, the answer is yes, it's the same mechanism, and we know this thanks to the very first sentence of the argument:
Quote:
That sentence wasn't specific to the original strain of herpesvirus; it relates to any viral infection.
