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 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 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 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.
20 Mar 2023, 06:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Sri07
SAME ARGUMENT, DIFFERENT QUESTION
Here is the argument:
Many rhinoceroses wear radio collars.
Often, collars slip.
When a collar slips, the animal is shot with a tranquilizer to re-collar.
Fertility of frequently recollared females <<< fertility of uncollared females. (Mind you, it doesn't compare collared females with uncollared)
Conclusion: tranquilizer inhibits fertility
We are looking for an assumption now.
a.The dose of tranquilizer delivered by a tranquilizer dart is large enough to give the rangers putting collars on rhinoceroses a generous margin of safety.
Not in our scope. Whether the dose is large enough for a generous margin (so that rhinos don't wake up while collars are being put), we are not discussing.
b.The fertility rate of uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park has been increasing in the past few decades.
We are not assuming that the fertility rate of uncollared females is increasing.
The negation here will be: The fertility rate of uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park has not been increasing in the past few decades.
When you take this to be true, does your conclusion fall apart? No. We know that there is a big difference in the fertility rates of uncollared females and frequently collared females currently. We are trying to find why.
Whether the fertility rate of uncollared rhinos is the same or decreasing every year doesn't matter. We don't need to assume anything about their annual rate.
Say fertility rate of uncollared rhinos was 50% last year and is 48% this year.
Fertility rate of frequently recollared was 25% last year and is 24% this year.
The point is why is there such a big difference between these two today. How it varies from last year has no relevance to us. We need to focus on the numbers of 48% vs 24% only.
Our scope doesn't talk about uncollared last year vs uncollared this year. It talks about uncollared last year vs frequently recollared this year.
c.Any stress that female rhinoceroses may suffer as a result of being immobilized and handled has little or no negative effect on their fertility.
When we conclude that something in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility, we are assuming that the physical effect of recollaring is not causing this decrease. If it were true that female rhinoceroses were suffering from stress as a result of being immobilized and that was hampering their fertility, then the tranquilizer may not be at fault. Hence our conclusion breaks.
This is an assumption.
d.The male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park do not lose their collars as often as the park’s female rhinoceroses do.
Nothing about male rhino fertility.
e.The tranquilizer used in immobilizing rhinoceroses is the same as the tranquilizer used in working with other large mammals.
Other large mammals are out of scope.
Answer (C)
02 Nov 2023, 14:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
Conclusion - Tranquilizer inhibits fertility. Because - Female rhinoceroses that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Park rangers need to tranquilize rhinoceros to put collars back.
We see a causal connection in the conclusion. Tranquilizer (cause) inhibits fertility (effect).
We need to evaluate the argument - In evaluation, we check the validity of the argument. The correct answers are framed along the lines of assumptions. Let us see what assumption here.
So, how do we weaken the causal argument X causes Y? X but not Y. This means we have Tranquilizer, but it doesn't inhibit fertility. There can be 2 cases. One case using Tranquilizer for recollar: we already know this. Another one is Using Tranquilizer for other than recollar. So, as discussed earlier, correct answers are framed along the lines of assumptions. The assumption here is that the Tranquilizer is not used for something else. We ask whether we use the Tranquilizer for something else. If it's Yes, then it means the conclusion is less valid, but if it's no, then the conclusion is strengthened.
There is another way to weaken the cause and effect. What if there is an alternate cause, Z, that is causing infertility? So, the assumption here is there is no other cause. And as Evlaute questions are framed along the lines of assumptions. So the evaluation question will be: Is there any alternate cause that causes infertility in the recollared females?
So, there are multiple ways to ask the evaluation question once we understand the argument.
Option Elimination -
(A) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park. This is a classic trap. The Argument talks about "rate," and this option talks about the numbers. Distortion.
(B) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals - Other large mammals? Out of scope.
(C) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars - This is okay as it asks for other uses of tranquilizer. GMAT has made the language complicated to understand.
(D) Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceroses do - We are comparing female rhinoceroses and their fertility. Out of scope.
(E) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park - For now, radio collars are the scope. Other practical means are out of scope.
Conclusion - Tranquilizer inhibits fertility. Because - Female rhinoceroses that have been frequently recollared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Park rangers need to tranquilize rhinoceros to put collars back.
We see a causal connection in the conclusion. Tranquilizer (cause) inhibits fertility (effect).
We need to evaluate the argument - In evaluation, we check the validity of the argument. The correct answers are framed along the lines of assumptions. Let us see what assumption here.
So, how do we weaken the causal argument X causes Y? X but not Y. This means we have Tranquilizer, but it doesn't inhibit fertility. There can be 2 cases. One case using Tranquilizer for recollar: we already know this. Another one is Using Tranquilizer for other than recollar. So, as discussed earlier, correct answers are framed along the lines of assumptions. The assumption here is that the Tranquilizer is not used for something else. We ask whether we use the Tranquilizer for something else. If it's Yes, then it means the conclusion is less valid, but if it's no, then the conclusion is strengthened.
There is another way to weaken the cause and effect. What if there is an alternate cause, Z, that is causing infertility? So, the assumption here is there is no other cause. And as Evlaute questions are framed along the lines of assumptions. So the evaluation question will be: Is there any alternate cause that causes infertility in the recollared females?
So, there are multiple ways to ask the evaluation question once we understand the argument.
Option Elimination -
(A) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park. This is a classic trap. The Argument talks about "rate," and this option talks about the numbers. Distortion.
(B) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals - Other large mammals? Out of scope.
(C) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars - This is okay as it asks for other uses of tranquilizer. GMAT has made the language complicated to understand.
(D) Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceroses do - We are comparing female rhinoceroses and their fertility. Out of scope.
(E) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park - For now, radio collars are the scope. Other practical means are out of scope.
22 Jul 2025, 05:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
@WhitEngagePrep Hello! I had a query - for choice (A), couldn't it be the case that if there are more collared female Rs v/s non collared, it could be that the non-collared fertility rates are an outlier given they have lesser numbers? I.e., they have specimens with an above average fertility rate, rather than tranquilisers having anything to do with it? I got this question right, but I found it hard to choose between A and C.
