It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 01:56

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2006, 19:57
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
_________________

Saumil Annegiri,

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 524

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2006, 03:16
A?

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2006, 03:26
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.
_________________

--I never think of future, it comes soon enough!!

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2006, 03:41
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.

Last edited by GMATT73 on 26 Aug 2006, 04:07, edited 2 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2006, 03:51
but here we are asked about a feasible explanation for the "statistics". shouldn't we concentrate on the figures mentioned in the argument??
_________________

--I never think of future, it comes soon enough!!

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 524

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2006, 04:17
yes it should be D...

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

28 May 2008, 05:16
I know that the OA is D, but I don´t get it... for me the right answer would be C.

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Posts: 153

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Schools: Kellogg(A), Wharton(W), Columbia(D)

### Show Tags

28 May 2008, 09:23
saumster wrote:
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 wrote:
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 !!!

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

30 May 2008, 05:30
anirudhoswal wrote:
saumster wrote:
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 wrote:
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 !!!

I really don´t understand your reasoning. For the remaining 900 rats, the 65% of deaths rule doesn´t apply.

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

Intern
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

30 May 2008, 05:32
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…

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

Re: Question 4 CR: Kaplan Advanced pg 45: # 16   [#permalink] 30 May 2008, 05:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by