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 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
22 Aug 2025, 21:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
The rapid maturation of gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR-Cas9, has altered the landscape of modern genetics. By allowing nucleotide-level changes to DNA, these tools could eradicate single-gene disorders, boost crop resilience, and conceivably influence human longevity. Yet many discussions to date have lingered on technical feasibility and clinical promise, postponing a thorough ethical reckoning for “later phases.” Policymakers now face the challenge of weighing unprecedented therapeutic possibilities against social, legal, and ecological risks that remain only partially understood.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses—therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other—share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest—or the most permissive - jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
Which statement best expresses the author’s central thesis of the updated passage?
A. The promise of CRISPR-Cas9 is tempered chiefly by unresolved ecological risks that demand regulation.
B. Internationally coordinated oversight is essential if society is to reap the benefits of gene-editing technology without amplifying existing inequities.
C. Absent a global ban, gene editing will inevitably produce “designer babies” and widen the social divide.
D. Because few nations share identical bioethical norms, unilateral experimentation with CRISPR is currently unavoidable.
E. Scientific enthusiasm for gene editing must first overcome political resistance before therapeutic use is feasible.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses—therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other—share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest—or the most permissive - jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
Which statement best expresses the author’s central thesis of the updated passage?
A. The promise of CRISPR-Cas9 is tempered chiefly by unresolved ecological risks that demand regulation.
B. Internationally coordinated oversight is essential if society is to reap the benefits of gene-editing technology without amplifying existing inequities.
C. Absent a global ban, gene editing will inevitably produce “designer babies” and widen the social divide.
D. Because few nations share identical bioethical norms, unilateral experimentation with CRISPR is currently unavoidable.
E. Scientific enthusiasm for gene editing must first overcome political resistance before therapeutic use is feasible.
22 Aug 2025, 21:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
The rapid maturation of gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR-Cas9, has altered the landscape of modern genetics. By allowing nucleotide-level changes to DNA, these tools could eradicate single-gene disorders, boost crop resilience, and conceivably influence human longevity. Yet many discussions to date have lingered on technical feasibility and clinical promise, postponing a thorough ethical reckoning for “later phases.” Policymakers now face the challenge of weighing unprecedented therapeutic possibilities against social, legal, and ecological risks that remain only partially understood.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses—therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other—share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest—or the most permissive - jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
Which statement best expresses the author’s central thesis of the updated passage?
A. The promise of CRISPR-Cas9 is tempered chiefly by unresolved ecological risks that demand regulation.
B. Internationally coordinated oversight is essential if society is to reap the benefits of gene-editing technology without amplifying existing inequities.
C. Absent a global ban, gene editing will inevitably produce “designer babies” and widen the social divide.
D. Because few nations share identical bioethical norms, unilateral experimentation with CRISPR is currently unavoidable.
E. Scientific enthusiasm for gene editing must first overcome political resistance before therapeutic use is feasible.
A) Incorrect: This choice narrows the issue to ecological dangers, ignoring the author’s equal emphasis on social inequity and therapeutic potential; it therefore understates the breadth of regulation the passage calls for.
B) Correct Answer: The passage argues that gene-editing’s benefits can be realized safely only through globally harmonized rules that prevent new forms of inequality.
C) Incorrect: By asserting that a worldwide ban is the only safeguard and that misuse is inevitable, this option overstates the author’s concerns and contradicts the passage’s advocacy of balanced regulation rather than prohibition.
D) Incorrect: The passage states that multilateral collaboration can avert unilateral experimentation; depicting such experimentation as “unavoidable” misrepresents the author’s outlook.
E) Incorrect: Political resistance is mentioned only tangentially; the author’s main focus is on establishing cooperative oversight. This option is irrelevant.
Answer: B
The rapid maturation of gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR-Cas9, has altered the landscape of modern genetics. By allowing nucleotide-level changes to DNA, these tools could eradicate single-gene disorders, boost crop resilience, and conceivably influence human longevity. Yet many discussions to date have lingered on technical feasibility and clinical promise, postponing a thorough ethical reckoning for “later phases.” Policymakers now face the challenge of weighing unprecedented therapeutic possibilities against social, legal, and ecological risks that remain only partially understood.
Among the most widely cited dangers is the advent of so-called “designer babies,” in which prospective parents pay for edits that heighten intelligence or sharpen athletic ability. Because such elective enhancements would likely debut at high cost, their availability could deepen existing economic cleavages and entrench a hereditary advantage for the affluent. These seemingly disparate uses—therapeutic cures on one hand, elective upgrades on the other—share a common vulnerability: once the technology is proven, it may be steered toward ends that society has never openly debated. The 2018 announcement of CRISPR-modified embryos in China illustrates how quickly private experimentation can outpace public consensus, while proposals for genetically altered insects to curb vector-borne disease reveal the potential for ecological knock-on effects and, in darker scenarios, military or commercial exploitation.
Because individual nations interpret bioethical norms through distinct cultural lenses, a piecemeal regulatory approach invites trouble. One country might green-light gene-drive crops that later destabilize trans-border ecosystems; another might impose an outright ban that denies citizens access to lifesaving therapies available elsewhere. Divergent national policies would create incentives for “regulatory tourism,” fostering a global environment in which the strictest—or the most permissive - jurisdiction sets de facto standards for everyone.
To avert that outcome, governments and scientific bodies must forge a multilateral framework that addresses three interlocking priorities. First, sustained, transparent dialogue is needed to map both foreseeable benefits and latent risks. Second, large-scale trials should secure public funding and independent oversight to ensure that controversial experiments proceed under rigorous peer review. Third, internationally ratified guidelines must govern everything from laboratory containment to eventual clinical deployment, thereby harmonizing safety thresholds and liability rules across borders. Only through such coordinated action can the transformative power of gene editing be harnessed responsibly, maximizing collective gain while minimizing unintended harm.
Which statement best expresses the author’s central thesis of the updated passage?
A. The promise of CRISPR-Cas9 is tempered chiefly by unresolved ecological risks that demand regulation.
B. Internationally coordinated oversight is essential if society is to reap the benefits of gene-editing technology without amplifying existing inequities.
C. Absent a global ban, gene editing will inevitably produce “designer babies” and widen the social divide.
D. Because few nations share identical bioethical norms, unilateral experimentation with CRISPR is currently unavoidable.
E. Scientific enthusiasm for gene editing must first overcome political resistance before therapeutic use is feasible.
A) Incorrect: This choice narrows the issue to ecological dangers, ignoring the author’s equal emphasis on social inequity and therapeutic potential; it therefore understates the breadth of regulation the passage calls for.
B) Correct Answer: The passage argues that gene-editing’s benefits can be realized safely only through globally harmonized rules that prevent new forms of inequality.
C) Incorrect: By asserting that a worldwide ban is the only safeguard and that misuse is inevitable, this option overstates the author’s concerns and contradicts the passage’s advocacy of balanced regulation rather than prohibition.
D) Incorrect: The passage states that multilateral collaboration can avert unilateral experimentation; depicting such experimentation as “unavoidable” misrepresents the author’s outlook.
E) Incorrect: Political resistance is mentioned only tangentially; the author’s main focus is on establishing cooperative oversight. This option is irrelevant.
Answer: B
