Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
27 Aug 2024, 05:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (01:47) correct
35%
(01:58)
wrong
based on 1008
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A study found that a field of genetically engineered corn had spread its genes into neighboring wild grasses, raising fears that these genes could alter wild grass species throughout the region. However, when the genetically engineered corn was removed, a follow-up study two years later could not find any trace of engineered corn genes in local grasses.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the discrepancy between the two studies?
A) Grasses without the engineered corn genes were much better able to survive and reproduce in that region than grasses with such genes.
B) The follow-up study was much more thorough in its search for engineered genes than the original study had been.
C) It took much less than two years for genes from the genetically engineered corn to spread into neighboring wild grasses.
D) Engineered corn genes are readily transferred and spread among many different species of wild grasses.
E)Most wild grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the discrepancy between the two studies?
A) Grasses without the engineered corn genes were much better able to survive and reproduce in that region than grasses with such genes.
B) The follow-up study was much more thorough in its search for engineered genes than the original study had been.
C) It took much less than two years for genes from the genetically engineered corn to spread into neighboring wild grasses.
D) Engineered corn genes are readily transferred and spread among many different species of wild grasses.
E)Most wild grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes.
Need more Tests to Practice?
GMAT Club Tests give expert solutions for every question in full and sectional GMAT Focus mocks.
Learn more →
27 Aug 2024, 08:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
A study found that a field of genetically engineered corn had spread its genes into neighboring wild grasses, raising fears that these genes could alter wild grass species throughout the region. However, when the genetically engineered corn was removed, a follow-up study two years later could not find any trace of engineered corn genes in local grasses.
We see that the passage presents a surprising outcome: Genes from genetically engineered corn spread into neighboring grasses, and the fear was that the genes would spread to wild grasses throughout the region, but two years later the genes from the corn had not spread but instead could not be found in local grasses.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the discrepancy between the two studies?
I think it doesn't quite make sense to say that there was a "discrepancy" between the studies since the studies were done at different times two years apart. So, it makes more sense to say that the studies found two different situations. All the same, we can tell what the correct answer must do. It must explain why, even though the corn genes were found in the grasses by the first study, none of the corn genes in question were found in the local grasses two years later.
A) Grasses without the engineered corn genes were much better able to survive and reproduce in that region than grasses with such genes.
This choice is interesting.
After all, the fact that "grasses without the engineered corn genes were much better able to survive and reproduce in that region than grasses with such genes," could explain why none of the modified corn genes were found in the local grasses.
What could have happened in that case was that, after the corn was removed, the grasses with the gene did not survive and reproduce as well as the grasses without the gene. So, over time, the grasses with the gene disappeared and the grasses without the gene took over. As a result, by the time the second study was conducted, little to no grass with the gene still existed in the area, and none was found.
So, the information provided by this choice helps to explain why no modified corn genes were found in the grasses.
Keep.
B) The follow-up study was much more thorough in its search for engineered genes than the original study had been.
If anything, this choice make the situation more surprising rather than explains why no modified corn genes were found.
After all, if the second study was more thorough, then the likelihood that any corn genes in the grass would have been found was even higher than in the case of the first study, but still none of the genes were found.
Eliminate.
C) It took much less than two years for genes from the genetically engineered corn to spread into neighboring wild grasses.
The fact that the genes spread in less than two years doesn't explain why the genes disappeared.
After all, if the genes spread in less than two years, two years later, we would expect EVEN MORE SPREAD, not the disappearance of the genes.
Eliminate.
D) Engineered corn genes are readily transferred and spread among many different species of wild grasses.
This choice does basically the opposite of what we need.
After all, if "Engineered corn genes are readily transferred and spread among many different species of wild grasses," then we would have expected that the corn genes would have spread, rather than disappeared.
Eliminate.
E)Most wild grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes.
This choice is tricky because it could seem to explain why no corn genes were found. After all, if most will grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes, then we'd conceivably have a reasonable explanation for why none of the genes were found in the wild grasses. Perhaps local grasses exposed to the gene were not affected or not enough were affected for the genes to be found in a study.
At the same time, there's an issue with this choice, and it's that, from the passage, we already have the information that the genes DID SPREAD into the wild grasses and WERE FOUND in the first study. That's why the situation is surprising, right?
So, what we have to explain isn't just why the genes didn't spread, it's why, surprisingly, the second study did not find the genes even though the first study did.
So, even if MOST wild grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes, apparently, at the time of the first study ENOUGH GRASS TO BE FOUND was susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes and had been altered.
So, even if this choice is true, we are left with the question of WHAT HAPPENED WITH ALL THE GRASS THAT WAS ALTERED. Sure, most of the grass in the region was not altered, but some was. So, where did it go?
Thus, the information provided by this choice leaves the key question unanswered. In other words, it leaves unexplained the fact that no modified corn genes were found in the grasses by the second study even though such genes were found in the grasses by the first study.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
We see that the passage presents a surprising outcome: Genes from genetically engineered corn spread into neighboring grasses, and the fear was that the genes would spread to wild grasses throughout the region, but two years later the genes from the corn had not spread but instead could not be found in local grasses.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the discrepancy between the two studies?
I think it doesn't quite make sense to say that there was a "discrepancy" between the studies since the studies were done at different times two years apart. So, it makes more sense to say that the studies found two different situations. All the same, we can tell what the correct answer must do. It must explain why, even though the corn genes were found in the grasses by the first study, none of the corn genes in question were found in the local grasses two years later.
A) Grasses without the engineered corn genes were much better able to survive and reproduce in that region than grasses with such genes.
This choice is interesting.
After all, the fact that "grasses without the engineered corn genes were much better able to survive and reproduce in that region than grasses with such genes," could explain why none of the modified corn genes were found in the local grasses.
What could have happened in that case was that, after the corn was removed, the grasses with the gene did not survive and reproduce as well as the grasses without the gene. So, over time, the grasses with the gene disappeared and the grasses without the gene took over. As a result, by the time the second study was conducted, little to no grass with the gene still existed in the area, and none was found.
So, the information provided by this choice helps to explain why no modified corn genes were found in the grasses.
Keep.
B) The follow-up study was much more thorough in its search for engineered genes than the original study had been.
If anything, this choice make the situation more surprising rather than explains why no modified corn genes were found.
After all, if the second study was more thorough, then the likelihood that any corn genes in the grass would have been found was even higher than in the case of the first study, but still none of the genes were found.
Eliminate.
C) It took much less than two years for genes from the genetically engineered corn to spread into neighboring wild grasses.
The fact that the genes spread in less than two years doesn't explain why the genes disappeared.
After all, if the genes spread in less than two years, two years later, we would expect EVEN MORE SPREAD, not the disappearance of the genes.
Eliminate.
D) Engineered corn genes are readily transferred and spread among many different species of wild grasses.
This choice does basically the opposite of what we need.
After all, if "Engineered corn genes are readily transferred and spread among many different species of wild grasses," then we would have expected that the corn genes would have spread, rather than disappeared.
Eliminate.
E)Most wild grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes.
This choice is tricky because it could seem to explain why no corn genes were found. After all, if most will grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes, then we'd conceivably have a reasonable explanation for why none of the genes were found in the wild grasses. Perhaps local grasses exposed to the gene were not affected or not enough were affected for the genes to be found in a study.
At the same time, there's an issue with this choice, and it's that, from the passage, we already have the information that the genes DID SPREAD into the wild grasses and WERE FOUND in the first study. That's why the situation is surprising, right?
So, what we have to explain isn't just why the genes didn't spread, it's why, surprisingly, the second study did not find the genes even though the first study did.
So, even if MOST wild grass species in the region were not susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes, apparently, at the time of the first study ENOUGH GRASS TO BE FOUND was susceptible to alteration by the genetically engineered corn genes and had been altered.
So, even if this choice is true, we are left with the question of WHAT HAPPENED WITH ALL THE GRASS THAT WAS ALTERED. Sure, most of the grass in the region was not altered, but some was. So, where did it go?
Thus, the information provided by this choice leaves the key question unanswered. In other words, it leaves unexplained the fact that no modified corn genes were found in the grasses by the second study even though such genes were found in the grasses by the first study.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
General Discussion
27 Aug 2024, 05:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
