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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.