|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
08 May 2026, 07:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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:
64% (02:12) correct
36%
(02:48)
wrong
based on 11
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Scientists have recently discovered that, in doses massive enough to kill cells, almost any chemical is carcinogenic because cell death causes rapid division among surviving cells, promoting cancer-causing mutations. A few chemicals are also carcinogenic without causing cell death. Until now studies of the carcinogenicity of food additives have always involved administering to test animals doses of additives larger than the largest possible human exposure levels and massive enough to kill large numbers of cells in the animals, and then observing the animals' cancer rates.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) In the doses heretofore used in carcinogenicity studies of food additives, cell death often does not occur in test animals.
(B) Until now results of carcinogenicity studies encouraged overestimation of the degree to which some food additives are carcinogenic.
(C) Truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause some immediate cell death, even in small doses.
(D) Carcinogenic chemicals are usually absorbed in small doses in the natural environment.
(E) Most of the food additives that are now banned because of carcinogenicity could safely be used in human foods.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) In the doses heretofore used in carcinogenicity studies of food additives, cell death often does not occur in test animals.
(B) Until now results of carcinogenicity studies encouraged overestimation of the degree to which some food additives are carcinogenic.
(C) Truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause some immediate cell death, even in small doses.
(D) Carcinogenic chemicals are usually absorbed in small doses in the natural environment.
(E) Most of the food additives that are now banned because of carcinogenicity could safely be used in human foods.
08 May 2026, 13:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
The answer is B.
The argument says that almost any chemical can appear carcinogenic if it is given in doses massive enough to kill cells. This is because cell death causes rapid division among surviving cells, and that rapid division can promote cancer-causing mutations. But, previous studies of food additives used doses that were far higher than possible human exposure levels and massive enough to kill many cells in test animals. So, these studies may have made some additives look more carcinogenic than they would be at realistic human exposure levels.
Option (A):
This says that in the doses used in studies, cell death often does not occur.
This directly contradicts the passage. The passage says the doses used were massive enough to kill large numbers of cells.
So this is not supported.
Option (B):
This says that previous carcinogenicity studies encouraged overestimation of how carcinogenic some food additives are.
This is strongly supported.
The studies used unrealistically large doses, and those doses caused cell death. Since cell death itself can create conditions that promote cancer-causing mutations, some additives may have appeared more dangerous than they would be under normal human exposure levels.
This does not say all studies were wrong. It only says the results encouraged overestimation in some cases, which is appropriately cautious.
So this is the correct answer.
Option (C):
This says truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause immediate cell death even in small doses.
The passage does not support this. In fact, it says a few chemicals are carcinogenic without causing cell death.
The passage gives no basis for saying what carcinogenic chemicals usually do in small doses.
Option (D):
This says carcinogenic chemicals are usually absorbed in small doses in the natural environment.
The passage is about food-additive studies and test doses. It does not discuss natural environmental absorption.
So this is outside the scope.
Option (E):
This says most food additives banned for carcinogenicity could safely be used in human foods. This goes too far.
The passage suggests that some additives may have been judged too harshly because of unrealistic test doses. But it does not tell us that most banned additives are safe.
Also, some chemicals can be carcinogenic even without causing cell death, so we cannot conclude that banned additives are generally safe.
The argument says that almost any chemical can appear carcinogenic if it is given in doses massive enough to kill cells. This is because cell death causes rapid division among surviving cells, and that rapid division can promote cancer-causing mutations. But, previous studies of food additives used doses that were far higher than possible human exposure levels and massive enough to kill many cells in test animals. So, these studies may have made some additives look more carcinogenic than they would be at realistic human exposure levels.
Option (A):
This says that in the doses used in studies, cell death often does not occur.
This directly contradicts the passage. The passage says the doses used were massive enough to kill large numbers of cells.
So this is not supported.
Option (B):
This says that previous carcinogenicity studies encouraged overestimation of how carcinogenic some food additives are.
This is strongly supported.
The studies used unrealistically large doses, and those doses caused cell death. Since cell death itself can create conditions that promote cancer-causing mutations, some additives may have appeared more dangerous than they would be under normal human exposure levels.
This does not say all studies were wrong. It only says the results encouraged overestimation in some cases, which is appropriately cautious.
So this is the correct answer.
Option (C):
This says truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause immediate cell death even in small doses.
The passage does not support this. In fact, it says a few chemicals are carcinogenic without causing cell death.
The passage gives no basis for saying what carcinogenic chemicals usually do in small doses.
Option (D):
This says carcinogenic chemicals are usually absorbed in small doses in the natural environment.
The passage is about food-additive studies and test doses. It does not discuss natural environmental absorption.
So this is outside the scope.
Option (E):
This says most food additives banned for carcinogenicity could safely be used in human foods. This goes too far.
The passage suggests that some additives may have been judged too harshly because of unrealistic test doses. But it does not tell us that most banned additives are safe.
Also, some chemicals can be carcinogenic even without causing cell death, so we cannot conclude that banned additives are generally safe.
08 May 2026, 14:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Scientists have recently discovered that, in doses massive enough to kill cells, almost any chemical is carcinogenic because cell death causes rapid division among surviving cells, promoting cancer-causing mutations. A few chemicals are also carcinogenic without causing cell death. Until now studies of the carcinogenicity of food additives have always involved administering to test animals doses of additives larger than the largest possible human exposure levels and massive enough to kill large numbers of cells in the animals, and then observing the animals' cancer rates.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
The passage says past tests used extremely large doses that killed many cells, and cell death itself can make almost any chemical appear carcinogenic. So past studies may have made some additives look more dangerous than they would be at realistic human exposure levels.
(A) In the doses heretofore used in carcinogenicity studies of food additives, cell death often does not occur in test animals.
Wrong. The passage says those doses were massive enough to kill large numbers of cells.
(B) Until now results of carcinogenicity studies encouraged overestimation of the degree to which some food additives are carcinogenic.
Correct. Since the test doses caused cell death, and cell death can itself promote cancer-causing mutations, some additives may have appeared carcinogenic because of the unrealistically massive dose, not because they would be carcinogenic under normal human exposure.
(C) Truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause some immediate cell death, even in small doses.
Wrong. The passage says a few chemicals are carcinogenic without causing cell death, but it does not say truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause cell death in small doses.
(D) Carcinogenic chemicals are usually absorbed in small doses in the natural environment.
Wrong. The passage says nothing about absorption in the natural environment.
(E) Most of the food additives that are now banned because of carcinogenicity could safely be used in human foods.
Wrong. Too strong. The passage supports possible overestimation in some cases, not that most banned additives are safe.
Answer: (B)
If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
The passage says past tests used extremely large doses that killed many cells, and cell death itself can make almost any chemical appear carcinogenic. So past studies may have made some additives look more dangerous than they would be at realistic human exposure levels.
(A) In the doses heretofore used in carcinogenicity studies of food additives, cell death often does not occur in test animals.
Wrong. The passage says those doses were massive enough to kill large numbers of cells.
(B) Until now results of carcinogenicity studies encouraged overestimation of the degree to which some food additives are carcinogenic.
Correct. Since the test doses caused cell death, and cell death can itself promote cancer-causing mutations, some additives may have appeared carcinogenic because of the unrealistically massive dose, not because they would be carcinogenic under normal human exposure.
(C) Truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause some immediate cell death, even in small doses.
Wrong. The passage says a few chemicals are carcinogenic without causing cell death, but it does not say truly carcinogenic chemicals usually cause cell death in small doses.
(D) Carcinogenic chemicals are usually absorbed in small doses in the natural environment.
Wrong. The passage says nothing about absorption in the natural environment.
(E) Most of the food additives that are now banned because of carcinogenicity could safely be used in human foods.
Wrong. Too strong. The passage supports possible overestimation in some cases, not that most banned additives are safe.
Answer: (B)
