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.
May 1912:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep....
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
May 2008:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
What’s in it for you- Live Profile Evaluation Chat Session with Jenifer Turtschanow, CEO, ARINGO. Come with your details prepared and ARINGO will share insights! Pre-MBA Role/Industry, YOE, Exam Score, C/GPA, ECs Post-MBA Role/ Industry & School List.- Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
05 Oct 2024, 22:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Recent breakthroughs in molecular biology, particularly through the development of CRISPR-Cas9, have revolutionized the field of genetic engineering. CRISPR-Cas9, derived from a bacterial immune mechanism, allows precise manipulation of DNA, enabling targeted gene deletions, insertions, or replacements with far greater simplicity and efficiency than previous technologies such as zinc finger nucleases and TALENs. Its introduction has been heralded as a transformative leap forward in gene editing, accelerating research in genetics, medicine, and agriculture.
However, while many researchers view CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool of unparalleled promise, others express caution, noting its potential for misuse and unintended consequences. Proponents argue that the ability to edit genes in model organisms such as fruit flies and mice has already advanced the understanding of numerous genetic conditions, paving the way for breakthroughs in therapeutic interventions, including the correction of genetic disorders in humans. They emphasize that CRISPR-Cas9's versatility across a wide range of organisms could lead to innovations in crop engineering, disease resistance, and even climate adaptation strategies.
Critics, however, caution that the technology’s power comes with profound ethical dilemmas. The ability to edit human embryos, for example, raises fears of “designer babies” and unintended social inequalities. Moreover, the long-term ecological effects of altering the genomes of species within complex ecosystems remain poorly understood. Some argue that the rush to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in agriculture and medicine has outpaced the necessary ethical frameworks, with policymakers struggling to catch up.
Central to this debate is the question of whether the potential benefits of CRISPR-Cas9 outweigh its risks. Advocates of regulation believe that stringent guidelines are essential to prevent misuse, but others contend that such restrictions might stifle scientific progress. Some proponents even posit that delaying the full deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 could hinder advances that might address pressing global challenges, such as food security and genetic diseases.
Ultimately, the future of CRISPR-Cas9—and genetic engineering more broadly—depends on striking a balance between innovation and caution. As this technology continues to evolve, scientists, ethicists, and policymakers must grapple with how best to manage its potential to reshape biology and society alike.
Which of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage about the views of proponents of CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
A. They believe that CRISPR-Cas9's ethical risks are exaggerated and do not warrant immediate action.
B. They are primarily focused on its medical applications and are less concerned with its agricultural uses.
C. They are optimistic about its potential to address global challenges but recognize that some level of regulation is necessary.
D. They think that delaying the deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 due to ethical concerns would be detrimental to scientific progress.
E. They believe that the ability to create “designer babies” is a benefit rather than a risk of CRISPR-Cas9 technology.
However, while many researchers view CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool of unparalleled promise, others express caution, noting its potential for misuse and unintended consequences. Proponents argue that the ability to edit genes in model organisms such as fruit flies and mice has already advanced the understanding of numerous genetic conditions, paving the way for breakthroughs in therapeutic interventions, including the correction of genetic disorders in humans. They emphasize that CRISPR-Cas9's versatility across a wide range of organisms could lead to innovations in crop engineering, disease resistance, and even climate adaptation strategies.
Critics, however, caution that the technology’s power comes with profound ethical dilemmas. The ability to edit human embryos, for example, raises fears of “designer babies” and unintended social inequalities. Moreover, the long-term ecological effects of altering the genomes of species within complex ecosystems remain poorly understood. Some argue that the rush to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in agriculture and medicine has outpaced the necessary ethical frameworks, with policymakers struggling to catch up.
Central to this debate is the question of whether the potential benefits of CRISPR-Cas9 outweigh its risks. Advocates of regulation believe that stringent guidelines are essential to prevent misuse, but others contend that such restrictions might stifle scientific progress. Some proponents even posit that delaying the full deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 could hinder advances that might address pressing global challenges, such as food security and genetic diseases.
Ultimately, the future of CRISPR-Cas9—and genetic engineering more broadly—depends on striking a balance between innovation and caution. As this technology continues to evolve, scientists, ethicists, and policymakers must grapple with how best to manage its potential to reshape biology and society alike.
Which of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage about the views of proponents of CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
A. They believe that CRISPR-Cas9's ethical risks are exaggerated and do not warrant immediate action.
B. They are primarily focused on its medical applications and are less concerned with its agricultural uses.
C. They are optimistic about its potential to address global challenges but recognize that some level of regulation is necessary.
D. They think that delaying the deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 due to ethical concerns would be detrimental to scientific progress.
E. They believe that the ability to create “designer babies” is a benefit rather than a risk of CRISPR-Cas9 technology.
05 Oct 2024, 22:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Recent breakthroughs in molecular biology, particularly through the development of CRISPR-Cas9, have revolutionized the field of genetic engineering. CRISPR-Cas9, derived from a bacterial immune mechanism, allows precise manipulation of DNA, enabling targeted gene deletions, insertions, or replacements with far greater simplicity and efficiency than previous technologies such as zinc finger nucleases and TALENs. Its introduction has been heralded as a transformative leap forward in gene editing, accelerating research in genetics, medicine, and agriculture.
However, while many researchers view CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool of unparalleled promise, others express caution, noting its potential for misuse and unintended consequences. Proponents argue that the ability to edit genes in model organisms such as fruit flies and mice has already advanced the understanding of numerous genetic conditions, paving the way for breakthroughs in therapeutic interventions, including the correction of genetic disorders in humans. They emphasize that CRISPR-Cas9's versatility across a wide range of organisms could lead to innovations in crop engineering, disease resistance, and even climate adaptation strategies.
Critics, however, caution that the technology’s power comes with profound ethical dilemmas. The ability to edit human embryos, for example, raises fears of “designer babies” and unintended social inequalities. Moreover, the long-term ecological effects of altering the genomes of species within complex ecosystems remain poorly understood. Some argue that the rush to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in agriculture and medicine has outpaced the necessary ethical frameworks, with policymakers struggling to catch up.
Central to this debate is the question of whether the potential benefits of CRISPR-Cas9 outweigh its risks. Advocates of regulation believe that stringent guidelines are essential to prevent misuse, but others contend that such restrictions might stifle scientific progress. Some proponents even posit that delaying the full deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 could hinder advances that might address pressing global challenges, such as food security and genetic diseases.
Ultimately, the future of CRISPR-Cas9—and genetic engineering more broadly—depends on striking a balance between innovation and caution. As this technology continues to evolve, scientists, ethicists, and policymakers must grapple with how best to manage its potential to reshape biology and society alike.
Which of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage about the views of proponents of CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
A. They believe that CRISPR-Cas9's ethical risks are exaggerated and do not warrant immediate action.
B. They are primarily focused on its medical applications and are less concerned with its agricultural uses.
C. They are optimistic about its potential to address global challenges but recognize that some level of regulation is necessary.
D. They think that delaying the deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 due to ethical concerns would be detrimental to scientific progress.
E. They believe that the ability to create “designer babies” is a benefit rather than a risk of CRISPR-Cas9 technology.
(A): Incorrect. The passage notes the "ethical concerns" but doesn't suggest proponents dismiss them as exaggerated.
(B): Incorrect. Proponents see value in both "medicine and agriculture," with no focus solely on one.
(C): Incorrect. The passage emphasizes that proponents are more concerned with delays than regulation: "might stifle scientific progress."
(D): Correct Answer. The passage suggests that proponents believe delaying CRISPR-Cas9 due to ethics would "hinder advances that might address pressing global challenges."
(E): Incorrect. The passage mentions ethical concerns around "designer babies," but proponents don't see this as a benefit.
Answer: D
Recent breakthroughs in molecular biology, particularly through the development of CRISPR-Cas9, have revolutionized the field of genetic engineering. CRISPR-Cas9, derived from a bacterial immune mechanism, allows precise manipulation of DNA, enabling targeted gene deletions, insertions, or replacements with far greater simplicity and efficiency than previous technologies such as zinc finger nucleases and TALENs. Its introduction has been heralded as a transformative leap forward in gene editing, accelerating research in genetics, medicine, and agriculture.
However, while many researchers view CRISPR-Cas9 as a tool of unparalleled promise, others express caution, noting its potential for misuse and unintended consequences. Proponents argue that the ability to edit genes in model organisms such as fruit flies and mice has already advanced the understanding of numerous genetic conditions, paving the way for breakthroughs in therapeutic interventions, including the correction of genetic disorders in humans. They emphasize that CRISPR-Cas9's versatility across a wide range of organisms could lead to innovations in crop engineering, disease resistance, and even climate adaptation strategies.
Critics, however, caution that the technology’s power comes with profound ethical dilemmas. The ability to edit human embryos, for example, raises fears of “designer babies” and unintended social inequalities. Moreover, the long-term ecological effects of altering the genomes of species within complex ecosystems remain poorly understood. Some argue that the rush to apply CRISPR-Cas9 in agriculture and medicine has outpaced the necessary ethical frameworks, with policymakers struggling to catch up.
Central to this debate is the question of whether the potential benefits of CRISPR-Cas9 outweigh its risks. Advocates of regulation believe that stringent guidelines are essential to prevent misuse, but others contend that such restrictions might stifle scientific progress. Some proponents even posit that delaying the full deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 could hinder advances that might address pressing global challenges, such as food security and genetic diseases.
Ultimately, the future of CRISPR-Cas9—and genetic engineering more broadly—depends on striking a balance between innovation and caution. As this technology continues to evolve, scientists, ethicists, and policymakers must grapple with how best to manage its potential to reshape biology and society alike.
Which of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage about the views of proponents of CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
A. They believe that CRISPR-Cas9's ethical risks are exaggerated and do not warrant immediate action.
B. They are primarily focused on its medical applications and are less concerned with its agricultural uses.
C. They are optimistic about its potential to address global challenges but recognize that some level of regulation is necessary.
D. They think that delaying the deployment of CRISPR-Cas9 due to ethical concerns would be detrimental to scientific progress.
E. They believe that the ability to create “designer babies” is a benefit rather than a risk of CRISPR-Cas9 technology.
(A): Incorrect. The passage notes the "ethical concerns" but doesn't suggest proponents dismiss them as exaggerated.
(B): Incorrect. Proponents see value in both "medicine and agriculture," with no focus solely on one.
(C): Incorrect. The passage emphasizes that proponents are more concerned with delays than regulation: "might stifle scientific progress."
(D): Correct Answer. The passage suggests that proponents believe delaying CRISPR-Cas9 due to ethics would "hinder advances that might address pressing global challenges."
(E): Incorrect. The passage mentions ethical concerns around "designer babies," but proponents don't see this as a benefit.
Answer: D
04 May 2025, 12:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
bb - How do you infer that they are more concerned with "hinder" than "ack that it would solve global challenges and regulation is somewhat necessary"?
I am still not able to negate C completely.
