Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumpt

You are spot on with options D and E. But consider these for other options
A. Nothing mentioned here focuses on the physiology of animals and therefore A is out of scope.
B. Well, this one could be tricky. You could be tempted to think that rats weren't affected because they ingested lower dosage of that item. But you have to keep in mind that since rats were in an experimental set-up, the scientists must have ensured that they get the same amount of dosage as the domestic animals. If it were not so then the set-up wouldn't have provided apple to apple comparison with reality. So for time being keep this logic in mind and move on to next options.
C. This one is the winner because rats are a type of animal species and here we don't have to make extra assumptions to verify the truth of the statement, unlike in option B. Since this is a type of must be true question you should pick the answer that directly and logically comes from the argument, without requiring any extra, unstated assumption.

Hey abhimahna,

Please take a look at the question stem again. It asks you to infer something on the basis of the information given in the passage. It is not a strengthen the argument question. In fact, there is no conclusion given in the passage.

The word "support" sometimes misleads one to think that the question stem is of the strengthen category. However, "support" is also used in inference questions.
So, how does one make sure that one does not get confused? Let's see two different questions stems with this word:

1. Which of the following, if true, most supports the argument above? ---STRENGTHEN

2. Which of the following is most supported by the argument above? --- INFERENCE

In one, as you can see, you are asked to choose something from the choices (A/B/C/D/E) that supports the argument - so the choice does the work of supporting. However, in statement 2, you are asked to find something that is supported by the argument - so the argument does the work of supporting the choice. In other words, in statement 2, you are supposed to find something that follows or can be deduced from the argument.

Do let me know if you have any queries.

Cheers!

Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumption of the legume Lathyrus sativus, is widespread among the domestic animals of some countries. Attempts to use rats to study Lathyrism have generally failed. Rats that ingested Lathyrus sativus did not produce the symptoms associated with the disorder.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.---we dont know , may be / may not
(B) The rats did not consume as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted Lathyrism.----we are not sure
(C) Not all animal species are equally susceptible to Lathyrism.---yes , as some domestic animal are contracted by this illness ...--rats are not getting infected , strengthen the point, some are immune to this disease
(D) Most of the animals that can contract Lathyrism are domestic.--we dont know
(E) Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of Lathyrism.----again out of scope

(A) The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.looks good, hold
(B) The rats did not consume as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted Lathyrism.better than A, so A rejected, it is better as it talks about something eaten by rats (please note rats here is important as the question stem talks about rats only and not about "any" animal species"
(C) Not all animal species are equally susceptible to Lathyrism.not good as "RATS" is not specifies here, had it been rats here, B culd have been rejected
(D) Most of the animals that can contract Lathyrism are domestic.not related to question stem so irrelevant
(E) Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of Lathyrism.who said anything about laboratory

Going by the above explanation should the answer not be B instead of C....How to tackle such questions....initially I also short listed C but rejected it as B was more specific....SUPREMELY CONFUSED.

I don't think physiology has anything to do with a disorder that is caused by consumption of something. A is a straight reject.

If they are saying rats did not consume as much sativus as the domestic animals did, it means we are trying to weaken the argument but remember this is not a weaken question. Here we must consider something that doesn't deny our facts.

Only option that does this is A.
_________________

Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumption of the legume Lathyrus sativus, is widespread among the domestic animals of some countries. Attempts to use rats to study Lathyrism have generally failed. Rats that ingested Lathyrus sativus did not produce the symptoms associated with the disorder.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.
(B) The rats did not consume as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted Lathyrism.
(C) Not all animal species are equally susceptible to Lathyrism.
(D) Most of the animals that can contract Lathyrism are domestic.
(E) Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of Lathyrism.

Easy Peasy, why the rats were not impacted while all the animals were,Prethinking :That the effect was not the same as that on the other animals.
The Lab condition is out of scope,Physiology is not dscussed,the Amount of consumption is also not mentioned and point that most animals that contract lathyrism are domestic is rather blunt and without evidence or support.

Hey, Thanks for the information.

Actually, I know these concepts but its just that the language I wrote created ambiguity. My point was to prove that Facts are a source of truth, so we MUST not deny them.

Specifically, in this question, when we are told that they did similar kind of experiments on rats, WE MUST assume that the quantity was equal. On saying the quantity of consumption was not equal, we are actually trying to break the fact. This is NOT allowed at all.

Anyways, thanks for pointing out. Appreciate it.
_________________

Super! I just read some of the other responses by you on the forum, and it is absolutely clear that you are aware of the concepts.

Also, I see that you gracefully acknowledged the source of confusion in your post. Thank you so much for your honesty!

Just one minor thing, and I am sure you will be able to appreciate this nuance, you have written that one of the choices is wrong because it goes against a given fact in the passage. However, if you read the passage again, it just says that Attempts to use rats to study Lathyrism have generally failed. It does not really say anything beyond it about the manner in which the study was conducted. So, we cannot infer anything about the same - quantity wise as well. It is for this reason that Choice B, which talks about the quantity, is incorrect. In other words, Choice B is wrong not because it goes against a fact in the passage, but because there is nothing to support it in the passage.

Cheers!

Thank you for this. But I wanna make one point here.

We are given "Attempts to use rats to study Lathyrism have generally failed."

I believe if you are experimenting something on another creature, you will make sure that everything is same(by everything I mean either environment wise or quantity wise).

If ,say, I wanna test the drug usage on Rats before making it available for humans, I will make sure that rats do eat the same quantity of the drug which human beings would be consuming.

If you give say 2mg of that drug to rats while the human requirement is 5 mg, then concluding that the drug is safe for human use just because it was safe on rats will be a weakest conclusion. You must test the same quantity on rats which you would be allowing to humans to consume. It may happen that 2mg of the drug is not harmful while 2.5 or above is harmful.

I hope that makes sense.

So, on a similar lines, option B could be rejected.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
_________________

Hey abhimahna,

Thank you for elaborating on your understanding.

However, the consideration I raised in my last response still stands as is.

So, let me try to explain it in a bit more detail.


Two things here:

1. I agree that when one is trying to simulate something, one should be cognizant of the various factors - including environment and other such things- that go in to producing the desired outcome. However, can we take that such practices were indeed followed in the studies that are mentioned in the passage? The answer is a clear NO unless specifically mentioned.

2. Now let's play devil's advocate here and say that one can take it for granted that the experiments were cognizant of the factors to the fullest possible degree. OK, then can one assume that the experimenters gave the same quantity of the drug/toxin etc. to simulate the result? The answer is a clear NO. Why is that? That's because we do not know that in order for the experiment to simulate the conditions, the experimenters HAD to give the same quantity. For instance, it is possible that the experimenters had to the reduce/increase the quantity of the toxin/drug to suit the animal on which they were testing. I am NOT saying that they did so - just that it is possible, and we cannot rule out this possibility unless there is enough evidence in the argument to state otherwise.

To take this consideration a step ahead, consider the opposite version of choice B below:

Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumption of the legume Lathyrus sativus, is widespread among the domestic animals of some countries. Attempts to use rats to study Lathyrism have generally failed. Rats that ingested Lathyrus sativus did not produce the symptoms associated with the disorder.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.
(B) The rats did not consumed as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted Lathyrism.
(C) Not all animal species are equally susceptible to Lathyrism.
(D) Most of the animals that can contract Lathyrism are domestic.
(E) Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of Lathyrism.


If the above were an actual question, it is highly unlikely that choice B would ever be correct - because of the reasons discussed above.

Hope this helps!

Cheers!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________