Primatologist: Monkeys and apes of most species groom

Question

Primatologist: Monkeys and apes of most species groom other members of their species frequently. The main function of this is clearly to promote cohesion.  In many species, grooming occurs far more often than is necessary to keep animal fur pristine.  Although grooming helps to remove parasites,  this offers no health benefit to the animal doing the grooming, only to the one being groomed.

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the primatologist's argument ?

A. The first is an observation for which an explanation is provided; the second is a conclusion for which support is provided.
B. The first is an explicitly supported conclusion, but not the main conclusion; the second is a premise that supports the main conclusion.
C. The first is a premise that supports the only conclusion by casting doubt on an alternative hypothesis; so is the second.
D. The first is a premise supporting the second; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.
E. The first provides an explanation for a puzzling observation; the second rules out an alternative explanation for that observation.

rn1112 · Accepted Answer

Primatologist: Monkeys and apes of most species groom other members of their species frequently. The main function of this is clearly to promote cohesion. In many species, grooming occurs far more often than is necessary to keep animal fur pristine. Although grooming helps to remove parasites, this offers no health benefit to the animal doing the grooming, only to the one being groomed.

Let's understand the structure of the Primatologist's argument  :-

Monkeys and apes of most species groom other members of their species frequently.       (Fact, serving as the Context/Background)  
The main function of this is clearly to promote cohesion.            (Conclusion of the Argument)  
In many species, grooming occurs far more often than is necessary to keep animal fur pristine.          (Evidence nullifying alternate purpose attributed to grooming ie, to keep animal fur pristine)  
Although grooming helps to remove parasites, this offers no health benefit to the animal doing the grooming, only to the one being groomed.   (Another evidence nullifying alternate purpose attributed to grooming ie, health benefit)

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the primatologist's argument ?

A) The first is an observation for which an explanation is provided; the second is a conclusion for which support is provided.
 BF1 -- Correct, since explanation has been provided for this fact; BF2 -- Incorrect, since the BF portion is not the conclusion of the argument.

B) The first is an explicitly supported conclusion, but not the main conclusion; the second is a premise that supports the main conclusion.
 BF1 -- Incorrect, since the BF portion is not a conclusion  of the argument, rather a fact; BF2 -- Correct, since the BF portion supports the conclusion  of the argument by nullifying an alternate purpose.

C) The first is a premise that supports the only conclusion by casting doubt on an alternative hypothesis; so is the second.
  BF1 -- Correct, since the BF portion supports the conclusion  of the argument by nullifying an alternate purpose ie, to keep animal fur pristine;
BF2 -- Correct, since the BF portion supports the conclusion  of the argument by nullifying an alternate purpose ie, health benefit.

D) The first is a premise supporting the second; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.
 BF1 -- Incorrect, since the explanation is independent of the alternate purpose for grooming , as identified by BF2; BF2 -- Inorrect, since the BF portion is a supporting evidence in supports of the conclusion of the argument, by nullifying an alternate purpose.

E) The first provides an explanation for a puzzling observation; the second rules out an alternative explantion for that observation.
 BF1 -- Correct, since it provides an 'alternate' explanation for the observation; BF2 -- Incorrect, since it does NOT rule out an alternative explantion, rather provides an 'alternate' explanation for the function of grooming

IMO, the correct option is (C)

MartyMurray · Answer

Primatologist: Monkeys and apes of most species groom other members of their species frequently. The main function of this is clearly to promote cohesion.  In many species, grooming occurs far more often than is necessary to keep animal fur pristine.  Although grooming helps to remove parasites,  this offers no health benefit to the animal doing the grooming, only to the one being groomed.

The passage begins with some background information:

Monkeys and apes of most species groom other members of their species frequently.

Next comes the main conclusion of the passage:

The main function of this is clearly to promote cohesion.

Everything that follows the main conclusion supports the main conclusion:

In many species, grooming occurs far more often than is necessary to keep animal fur pristine.

The above statement supports the main conclusion by indicating that there is a purpose to grooming other than keeping animal fur pristine.

Although grooming helps to remove parasites,  this offers no health benefit to the animal doing the grooming, only to the one being groomed.

The above statement supports the main conclusion by indicating that grooming provides a benefit other than health benefits.

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the primatologist's argument ?

A) The first is an observation for which an explanation is provided; the second is a conclusion for which support is provided.

This choice starts off OK since the first is an observation. At the same time, this choice quickly goes wrong because no "explanation" for the first is provided.

Also, no support is provided for the second.

Eliminate.

B) The first is an explicitly supported conclusion, but not the main conclusion; the second is a premise that supports the main conclusion.

The second part of this choice is correct since the second boldfaced portion is a premise that supports the main conclusion.

At the same time, while the first boldfaced portion may present a conclusion, it is not "explicitly supported." It's not supported at all.

Eliminate.

C) The first is a premise that supports the only conclusion by casting doubt on an alternative hypothesis; so is the second.

The first boldfaced portion provides support for the main conclusion, which is the only conclusion, that the main function of grooming is to promote cohesion. It supports that conclusion by casting doubt on the hypothesis that the main purpose of grooming is to keep animal fur pristine.

The second boldfaced portion also supports the main conclusion. It does so by casting doubt on the hypothesis that grooming is done solely for health benefits.

Keep.

D) The first is a premise supporting the second; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.

The first does not support the second, and the second is not the main conclusion.

Rather, the first and second present different reasons to believe the main conclusion that the main function of grooming is to promote cohesion.

Eliminate.

E) The first provides an explanation for a puzzling observation; the second rules out an alternative explanation for that observation.

The first does not provide an explanation for an observation. Rather, the first is an observation for which the conclusion that the main function of grooming is to promote cohesion could be considered an explanation.

The second does not serve to rule out any explanation. Rather, the second presents another observation that is explained by the main conclusion of the passage.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  C

Aryaa03 · Answer

Please explain this
 GMATNinja   KarishmaB   MartyMurray

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB  I chose E. Not sure how the answer is C.

Posted from my mobile device

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Primatologists (who study primates - apes/monkeys, etc.): Monkeys and apes of most species groom other members of their species frequently. - Fact. 
The main function of this is clearly to promote cohesion. - Conclusion 
 In many species, grooming occurs far more often than is necessary to keep animal fur pristine.  - Let us understand this "far more often than is necessary." It means that had "keeping the fur pristine" been the primary reason, the grooming would have been lower or only that much that would suffice the purpose. What purpose? Keep the fur clean. But on the contrary, "far more often than is necessary," meaning there is some alternate reason why grooming happens. What reason? Maybe to promote cohesion. Essentially, it rules out the alternative hypothesis (what hypothesis? fur cleaning).

Although grooming helps to remove parasites,  this offers no health benefit to the animal doing the grooming, only to the one being groomed. -  the is clearly removing the other alternate hypothesis of removing parasites.

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the primatologist's argument ?

Option Elimination -

A) The first is an observation for which an explanation is provided (no explanation); the second is a conclusion for which support is provided (2nd is premise and not a conclusion).

B) The first is an explicitly supported conclusion (BF1 is a premise and not a conclusion) but not the main conclusion; the second is a premise that supports the main conclusion. (ok)

C) The first is a premise that supports the only conclusion by casting doubt on an alternative hypothesis (ok. Fur cleaning is no alternative hypothesis); so is the second (removing parasites is no alternative hypothesis) - ok.

D) The first is a premise supporting the second (No. it supports the main conclusion); the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion. (No. it is a premise, and neither a conclusion nor the main conclusion).

E) The first provides an explanation for a puzzling observation (no, it's not an explanation for the puzzling observation of "more than necessary grooming." It just states the puzzling observation to rule out the alternative hypothesis, but no explicit explanation is provided as to why it is "more than necessary grooming." Of course, implicitly, we understand that it may be due to promoting cohesion); the second rules out an alternative explanation for that observation. (First there is no explanation for the observation of "more than necessary grooming." Even if we assume that the explanation could be due to promoting cohesion, the 2nd BF does not rule out the conclusion itself. Wrong.

GMATNinja · Answer

On these questions, you always want to start by cutting straight to the heart of the passage. Here, the conclusion is that the main function of grooming in apes monkeys is social cohesion.

So what are those bold parts doing? The first seems like evidence or a premise, informing us that in many species grooming goes way beyond what's necessary to keep fur pristine. The second also seems like a premise: grooming isn't about health benefits.

Put another way, the bold portions support the conclusion by pointing out what grooming isn't really used for -- it's not just about keeping the fur nice and shiny, and it's not just about health benefits.

To the answers!
 
Nope. The second boldface statement is definitely not a conclusion. Kill (A).
 
The first isn't a conclusion. (B) is out.
 
Looks good to me! Both statements are premises discuss what grooming  isn't  for. Hold on to (C).
 
The second statement definitely is not a conclusion. So long, (D).
 
The first isn't an explanation -- it's an observation about animal behavior. And there's nothing puzzling about it. It appears to be a behavior common to many animals. So (E) is out.

And we're left with (C), which is our answer. The takeaway: getting right to the heart of the passage is also crucial in boldfaced questions.

I hope that helps!

sayan640 · Answer

Thank you  marty  for clearing my doubt.
As the option E states , the first statement is not an explanation but an observation.The only explanation is given out by the conclusion itself i.e the main function of grooming is to promote social cohesion. The first b.f states that grooming is not just for keeping fur clean . Add "so" after this statement and see how the conclusion i.e grooming is for promoting social cohesion flows after that as its supporting explanation.
Same can be said about b.f2.

Posted from my mobile device

user1937 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray  thanks for the detailed explanation.

I just wanted to check again for the best reason to eliminate (B) - is it because it not a conclusion or becasue it is not explicitly supported. In this case, it can be eliminated for multiple reasons (even if a conclusion, it is not explicitly supported).

But how can we say if it is a conclusion or a premise? I feel knowing this would help as redundancy in why an option must be eliminated might help in faster elimination. (?)

Thanks.

Aakanksha1194 · Answer

MartyMurray  I got thrown off by the tern explicitly supported. Doesn't this mean that this fact doesn't need any additional support as this is reasoning in itself? Am I wrong to assume that this is a reasoning sentence

Primatologist: Monkeys and apes of most species groom

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Primatologist: Monkeys and apes of most species groom

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards