Last visit was: 01 Sep 2026, 00:13 It is currently 01 Sep 2026, 00:13
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
saumster
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Last visit: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
5
Posts: 72
Kudos: 5
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 25 Aug 2006, 19:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Anyone know the answer to this and can explain: I will post right answer after giving you guys a shot
--------------------------------------------
A certain lab is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage in rats. Sixty five percent of all rats whose environment exposed them to low levels of the toxin sulphur died of liver disorder. Ninety percent of all rats who died of liver disorder, however were not exposed to any environmental toxins.
Which of the following provides a feasible explanation for the statistics above:
a. environmental and non environmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive
b. there is only one cause of fatal liver disorder in rats.
c. Environmental toxins are not particularly dangerous to livers of rats
d. Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulphur
e. Most rats will not suffer from exposure to low levels of sulphur



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
mahesh004
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Last visit: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
621
Location: US
Posts: 271
Kudos: 621
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 26 Aug 2006, 03:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A?
User avatar
hisharma
User avatar
Joined: 22 May 2005
Last visit: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
50
Posts: 51
Kudos: 50
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 26 Aug 2006, 03:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shouldn't it be D ... if only 10% of the rats constitute the total no of rats died of liver disorderand which in turn represent 65% of rats exposed to environmental toxin , we can conclude that Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulphur.
User avatar
GMATT73
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Last visit: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 2,877
Own Kudos:
1,311
Posts: 2,877
Kudos: 1,311
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 Updated on: 26 Aug 2006, 04:07
Originally posted by GMATT73 on 26 Aug 2006, 03:41.
Last edited by GMATT73 on 26 Aug 2006, 04:07, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tip of the day, understand what "mutually exclusive" means, because it is frequently tested in both Q and V.

Mutually exclusive is when two events cannot coexist concurrently.

Example:

A flipped coin coming up heads and the same coin coming up tails at the same time is not possible as they are mutually exclusive events. (= they cannot exist together at the same time).

BTW: (A) is not the correct answer here because we don't know what exactly killed the rats.
User avatar
hisharma
User avatar
Joined: 22 May 2005
Last visit: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
50
Posts: 51
Kudos: 50
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 26 Aug 2006, 03:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
but here we are asked about a feasible explanation for the "statistics". shouldn't we concentrate on the figures mentioned in the argument??
User avatar
mahesh004
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Last visit: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
621
Location: US
Posts: 271
Kudos: 621
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 26 Aug 2006, 04:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
yes it should be D...
User avatar
DFG5150
User avatar
Joined: 06 May 2008
Last visit: 20 Feb 2011
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
66
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 19
Kudos: 66
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 28 May 2008, 05:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I know that the OA is D, but I don´t get it... for me the right answer would be C.
:?
User avatar
anirudhoswal
User avatar
Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Last visit: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 47
Own Kudos:
109
Schools:Kellogg(A), Wharton(W), Columbia(D)
Posts: 47
Kudos: 109
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 28 May 2008, 09:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
saumster
Anyone know the answer to this and can explain: I will post right answer after giving you guys a shot
--------------------------------------------
A certain lab is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage in rats. Sixty five percent of all rats whose environment exposed them to low levels of the toxin sulphur died of liver disorder. Ninety percent of all rats who died of liver disorder, however were not exposed to any environmental toxins.
Which of the following provides a feasible explanation for the statistics above:
a. environmental and non environmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive
b. there is only one cause of fatal liver disorder in rats.
c. Environmental toxins are not particularly dangerous to livers of rats
d. Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulphur
e. Most rats will not suffer from exposure to low levels of sulphur
Show more


DFG5150
I know that the OA is D, but I don´t get it... for me the right answer would be C.
:?
Show more
Take 1000 rats.
Put 100 exposed to Sulfur... 65 die of the liver thing.
of the remaining 9900 have 585 died liver deaths.

So all is explained by D !!!
User avatar
DFG5150
User avatar
Joined: 06 May 2008
Last visit: 20 Feb 2011
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
66
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 19
Kudos: 66
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 30 May 2008, 05:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anirudhoswal
saumster
Anyone know the answer to this and can explain: I will post right answer after giving you guys a shot
--------------------------------------------
A certain lab is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage in rats. Sixty five percent of all rats whose environment exposed them to low levels of the toxin sulphur died of liver disorder. Ninety percent of all rats who died of liver disorder, however were not exposed to any environmental toxins.
Which of the following provides a feasible explanation for the statistics above:
a. environmental and non environmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive
b. there is only one cause of fatal liver disorder in rats.
c. Environmental toxins are not particularly dangerous to livers of rats
d. Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulphur
e. Most rats will not suffer from exposure to low levels of sulphur


DFG5150
I know that the OA is D, but I don´t get it... for me the right answer would be C.
:?
Take 1000 rats.
Put 100 exposed to Sulfur... 65 die of the liver thing.
of the remaining 9900 have 585 died liver deaths.

So all is explained by D !!!
Show more

I really don´t understand your reasoning. For the remaining 900 rats, the 65% of deaths rule doesn´t apply.
User avatar
DFG5150
User avatar
Joined: 06 May 2008
Last visit: 20 Feb 2011
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
66
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 19
Kudos: 66
Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16 30 May 2008, 05:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ok, I got it…

Let’s say that:
A is the group of rats exposed to sulfur
B is the group of rats that die

A union B (AUB) is the group of rats exposed to sulfur and that die.

We are told that:
AUB is 65% of A
AUB is 10% of B

So, A must be smaller that B…

And yes… answer is D.

Thanks.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
704 posts