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.
Aug 2710:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0410:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What does test anxiety really look like on the GMAT? For many test takers, it does not look like a panic attack. Instead, it shows up as brain fog, rereading, negative comparisons, mental noise....
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sept. 6, 9:30am-12:30pm EST- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Oct. 13, 2026 - Jan. 7, 2027, 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
05 Oct 2024, 22:21
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 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.
Suppose a new discovery shows that CRISPR-Cas9 gene edits in agricultural crops have a 20% chance of affecting neighboring plant species. Which of the following, if true, would most likely exacerbate the ethical concerns mentioned in the passage?
A. Neighboring species tend to have genetic traits that could negatively interact with CRISPR-modified crops.
B. The agricultural industry has expressed confidence in the ability to control the spread of CRISPR-modified genes.
C. The affected species are primarily wild plants with little commercial value.
D. Current ecological studies have not provided conclusive evidence of the risk of gene spread between species.
E. CRISPR-Cas9 technology is currently being used to enhance plant resistance to diseases, which has increased agricultural yields globally.
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 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.
Suppose a new discovery shows that CRISPR-Cas9 gene edits in agricultural crops have a 20% chance of affecting neighboring plant species. Which of the following, if true, would most likely exacerbate the ethical concerns mentioned in the passage?
A. Neighboring species tend to have genetic traits that could negatively interact with CRISPR-modified crops.
B. The agricultural industry has expressed confidence in the ability to control the spread of CRISPR-modified genes.
C. The affected species are primarily wild plants with little commercial value.
D. Current ecological studies have not provided conclusive evidence of the risk of gene spread between species.
E. CRISPR-Cas9 technology is currently being used to enhance plant resistance to diseases, which has increased agricultural yields globally.
05 Oct 2024, 22:21
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 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.
Suppose a new discovery shows that CRISPR-Cas9 gene edits in agricultural crops have a 20% chance of affecting neighboring plant species. Which of the following, if true, would most likely exacerbate the ethical concerns mentioned in the passage?
A. Neighboring species tend to have genetic traits that could negatively interact with CRISPR-modified crops.
B. The agricultural industry has expressed confidence in the ability to control the spread of CRISPR-modified genes.
C. The affected species are primarily wild plants with little commercial value.
D. Current ecological studies have not provided conclusive evidence of the risk of gene spread between species.
E. CRISPR-Cas9 technology is currently being used to enhance plant resistance to diseases, which has increased agricultural yields globally.
(A): Correct Answer. The passage mentions concerns about "long-term effects on ecosystems." If neighboring species have traits that could negatively interact with CRISPR-modified crops, it would heighten fears of unintended ecological consequences, exacerbating ethical concerns.
(B): Incorrect. Confidence from the agricultural industry about controlling gene spread would alleviate, not exacerbate, ethical concerns.
(C): Incorrect. If the affected species have little commercial value, the ethical concerns would likely be minimized rather than exacerbated.
(D): Incorrect. Inconclusive ecological studies would neither directly heighten nor reduce the ethical concerns. It would maintain the status quo of uncertainty.
(E): Incorrect. This fact highlights positive outcomes from CRISPR-Cas9 use, which would reduce rather than exacerbate ethical concerns.
Answer: A
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 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.
Suppose a new discovery shows that CRISPR-Cas9 gene edits in agricultural crops have a 20% chance of affecting neighboring plant species. Which of the following, if true, would most likely exacerbate the ethical concerns mentioned in the passage?
A. Neighboring species tend to have genetic traits that could negatively interact with CRISPR-modified crops.
B. The agricultural industry has expressed confidence in the ability to control the spread of CRISPR-modified genes.
C. The affected species are primarily wild plants with little commercial value.
D. Current ecological studies have not provided conclusive evidence of the risk of gene spread between species.
E. CRISPR-Cas9 technology is currently being used to enhance plant resistance to diseases, which has increased agricultural yields globally.
(A): Correct Answer. The passage mentions concerns about "long-term effects on ecosystems." If neighboring species have traits that could negatively interact with CRISPR-modified crops, it would heighten fears of unintended ecological consequences, exacerbating ethical concerns.
(B): Incorrect. Confidence from the agricultural industry about controlling gene spread would alleviate, not exacerbate, ethical concerns.
(C): Incorrect. If the affected species have little commercial value, the ethical concerns would likely be minimized rather than exacerbated.
(D): Incorrect. Inconclusive ecological studies would neither directly heighten nor reduce the ethical concerns. It would maintain the status quo of uncertainty.
(E): Incorrect. This fact highlights positive outcomes from CRISPR-Cas9 use, which would reduce rather than exacerbate ethical concerns.
Answer: A
