GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 12 Dec 2019, 19:46

### 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

# Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 28
Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 31 Mar 2019, 21:43
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:52) correct 24% (01:59) wrong based on 223 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a blowgun to tranquilize baboons in the Kenyan savanna. Once immobile, he could attach radio collars and track the baboon's movement. In one study, whenever a baboon's radio collar slipped off he would put it back on. This would involve another session of immobilizing the baboon with a tranquilizing dart. He noticed that female baboons that were frequently recollared had significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibited fertility.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The dose of tranquilizer delivered by a tranquilizer dart was large enough to give the Sapolsky a generous margin of safety.

(B) The fertility rate of uncollared female baboons had been increasing in the past few decades.

(C) Any stress that female baboons might have suffered as a result of being immobilized and handled had little or no negative effect on their fertility.

(D) The male baboons did not lose their collars as often as the female baboons did.

(E) The tranquilizer used in immobilizing baboons was the same as the tranquilizer used in working with other large mammals.

Originally posted by elegan on 29 Oct 2012, 00:59.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 31 Mar 2019, 21:43, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted
VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1098
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2012, 02:56
2
1
elegan wrote:
Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a blowgun to tranquilize baboons in the Kenyan savanna. Once immobile, he could attach radio collars and track the baboon's movement. In one study, whenever a baboon's radio collar slipped off he would put it back on. This would involve another session of immobilizing the baboon with a tranquilizing dart. He noticed that female baboons that were frequently recollared had significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibited fertility.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)

The dose of tranquilizer delivered by a tranquilizer dart was large enough to give the Sapolsky a generous margin of safety.

(B)

The fertility rate of uncollared female baboons had been increasing in the past few decades.

(C)

Any stress that female baboons might have suffered as a result of being immobilized and handled had little or no negative effect on their fertility.

(D)

The male baboons did not lose their collars as often as the female baboons did.

(E)

The tranquilizer used in immobilizing baboons was the same as the tranquilizer used in working with other large mammals.

------------------------------------
Hello there,

Can I have your thoughts on this please - 3-4 of the answers, seemed reasonable for me. I chose correct OC in the end, but couldn't quite say why it was correct.

Many thanks.

Conclusion : Tranqued and collared baboons less fertile. So tranqs must be affecting baboon.

a) Completely out of scope.

b) We are only concerned about the monkeys that have been collared. Out of scope.

c) Correct answer. This assumption eliminates any alternate cause for the reduced fertility in the female baboons. This option also passes the LEN test.
Any stress that female baboons might have suffered as a result of being immobilized and handled had some negative effect on their fertility. Hence conclusion is killed.

d)Totally out of scope.

e)Totally out of scope.

Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Posts: 12
Schools: Anderson '15
Re: Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2012, 06:01
1
Good ques..ans C

Some substance effected fertility. Cause - > Effect.

Assumption : Nothing else might have had effect on fertility --> Other causes dont have intended effect.
Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2016
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GPA: 3.76
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2016, 13:09
The assumption should be - none other than tranquilizer can be the reason for low fertility.
Ans. C
Director
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 994
Location: India
Re: Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2019, 05:48
elegan wrote:
Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a blowgun to tranquilize baboons in the Kenyan savanna. Once immobile, he could attach radio collars and track the baboon's movement. In one study, whenever a baboon's radio collar slipped off he would put it back on. This would involve another session of immobilizing the baboon with a tranquilizing dart. He noticed that female baboons that were frequently recollared had significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibited fertility.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The dose of tranquilizer delivered by a tranquilizer dart was large enough to give the Sapolsky a generous margin of safety.

(B) The fertility rate of uncollared female baboons had been increasing in the past few decades.

(C) Any stress that female baboons might have suffered as a result of being immobilized and handled had little or no negative effect on their fertility.

(D)The male baboons did not lose their collars as often as the female baboons did.

(E) The tranquilizer used in immobilizing baboons was the same as the tranquilizer used in working with other large mammals.

SO the crux of the argument was that the recollared baboons fertility was getting infected by the tranquilizer

Concluding that some substance in the tranquilizer inhibited fertility.

The author was assuming C
(C) Any stress that female baboons might have suffered as a result of being immobilized and handled had little or no negative effect on their fertility.

When negated will weaken the conclusion.
_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Re: Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a   [#permalink] 04 Feb 2019, 05:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Neurobiologist Sapolsky from Stanford University used a

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne