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 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
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 19
12:00 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.... - 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..
22 Aug 2025, 21:55
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.
The passage most strongly implies which of the following?
A. The most cost-effective approach to gene editing will probably involve modifying embryos to enhance particular traits.
B. The expected benefits of gene editing will outweigh ethical concerns, making its widespread adoption inevitable.
C. Without international collaboration, gene-editing technologies will almost certainly be misused, creating widespread societal and ecological harm.
D. Gene editing will eventually be banned worldwide because of concerns about inequality and misuse.
E. If elective genetic enhancements remain expensive they are likely to intensify existing socioeconomic divisions.
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.
The passage most strongly implies which of the following?
A. The most cost-effective approach to gene editing will probably involve modifying embryos to enhance particular traits.
B. The expected benefits of gene editing will outweigh ethical concerns, making its widespread adoption inevitable.
C. Without international collaboration, gene-editing technologies will almost certainly be misused, creating widespread societal and ecological harm.
D. Gene editing will eventually be banned worldwide because of concerns about inequality and misuse.
E. If elective genetic enhancements remain expensive they are likely to intensify existing socioeconomic divisions.
22 Aug 2025, 21:55
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.
The passage most strongly implies which of the following?
A. The most cost-effective approach to gene editing will probably involve modifying embryos to enhance particular traits.
B. The expected benefits of gene editing will outweigh ethical concerns, making its widespread adoption inevitable.
C. Without international collaboration, gene-editing technologies will almost certainly be misused, creating widespread societal and ecological harm.
D. Gene editing will eventually be banned worldwide because of concerns about inequality and misuse.
E. If elective genetic enhancements remain expensive they are likely to intensify existing socioeconomic divisions.
A) Incorrect: The passage never addresses relative cost or calls embryo modification the most economical pathway.
B) Incorrect: The author does not predict an inevitable rollout.
C) Incorrect: The text indeed warns that differing national policies invite trouble, yet it stops short of asserting that misuse is likely; thus this option is going too far to say that almost certainly there will be misuse.
D) Incorrect: The author argues for coordinated oversight, not for a universal ban; this choice contradicts the proposed solution of multilateral regulation.
E) Correct Answer: The passage links the concept of designer babies to the danger of deepening economic cleavages, implying that high costs for elective enhancements would create greater disparties.
Answer: E
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.
The passage most strongly implies which of the following?
A. The most cost-effective approach to gene editing will probably involve modifying embryos to enhance particular traits.
B. The expected benefits of gene editing will outweigh ethical concerns, making its widespread adoption inevitable.
C. Without international collaboration, gene-editing technologies will almost certainly be misused, creating widespread societal and ecological harm.
D. Gene editing will eventually be banned worldwide because of concerns about inequality and misuse.
E. If elective genetic enhancements remain expensive they are likely to intensify existing socioeconomic divisions.
A) Incorrect: The passage never addresses relative cost or calls embryo modification the most economical pathway.
B) Incorrect: The author does not predict an inevitable rollout.
C) Incorrect: The text indeed warns that differing national policies invite trouble, yet it stops short of asserting that misuse is likely; thus this option is going too far to say that almost certainly there will be misuse.
D) Incorrect: The author argues for coordinated oversight, not for a universal ban; this choice contradicts the proposed solution of multilateral regulation.
E) Correct Answer: The passage links the concept of designer babies to the danger of deepening economic cleavages, implying that high costs for elective enhancements would create greater disparties.
Answer: E
04 Sep 2025, 17:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
I did not quite understand the solution.
I did not understand the solution
option c
I did not understand the solution
option c
