A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban a

Question

A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding. It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

A) Testing new products on laboratory rats has sometimes led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health.
B) Rats thrive in the crowded conditions of human urban society.
C) Rats also exhibit unnatural behavior in conditions of extreme isolation.
D) Although rat behavior does change in crowded conditions, what results is not random violence but a new, radically different social order.
E) In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior.

GyanOne · Accepted Answer

The answer should be (E).

The question says that the analogy between humans and rats is simplistic, because of factors like human adaptability and cultural behavior that determine the behavior of humans (and not rats).

(A): Testing new products on rats has no relation to the behavior they exhibit in different conditions. Incorrect. 
(B): We cannot determine the response of rats or humans by the behavior of rats in crowded human conditions. Incorrect. 
(C): Even if rats exhibit unnatural behavior in crowded conditions, we must have some way of comparing this with what humans do in such conditions to draw a meaningful inference. This information is not provided so we cannot make the comparison. Incorrect. 
(D): If rats exhibit not random violence but a new, different social order then this would oppose the author's argument - rats would seem to be exhibiting adaptability, similar to what humans do. It would then become difficult to distinguish between the two. Incorrect. 
(E): CORRECT. If there is little violent behavior in some crowded human societies, and higher violent behavior in some sparsely populated communities, it means that human behavior is changing according to adaptation. This is not the behavior exhibited by mice - which seem to consistently exhibit violent behavior in conditions of extreme overcrowding. Therefore this choice elucidates the difference between human and rat behavior.

vmdce129907 · Answer

Q : A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding. It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior.

The conclusion of this argument is - Analogy between rats and humans is simplistic but it leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance. So the answer choice must show that this analogy indeed has some weaknesses because it does not consider human adaptability and cultural factors that also affects human behaviour. 
The argument mentions that extreme overcrowding leads to violent behaviour in rats and then make a generic conclusion by analogy of humans with rats but Answer choice 'E' explains that this analogy may not always be true because it has not considered human adaptability and cultural factors (E - Cities are crowded but little antisocial behaviour and vice versa).

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

A. Testing new products on laboratory rats has sometimes led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health. -  While this may be true, it does not explicitly mention about the human behaviour affected by adaptability and culture .
B. Rats thrive in the crowded conditions of human urban society. -  Out of Scope 
C. Rats also exhibit unnatural behavior in conditions of extreme isolation.  Out of Scope 
D. Although rat behavior does change in crowded conditions, what results is not random violence but a new, radically different social order. -  Out of scope. 
E. In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior. -  Correct, Explained above.

Press +1 Kudos if you like the explanation

adineo · Answer

To strengthen the conclusion that :

We need to weaken the the stand that humans behave like rats. This is weakened in E, as E states that In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior. This is opposite to the way rats behave hence we have strengthen the conclusion.

NO other options does this, they all either give additional info or dont strengthen.

I hope i am able to explain as clearly as possible. if not please let me know

pqhai · Answer

Fact: A few decades ago, dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior was linked with high population density
Fact: Laboratory rats exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding 
Fact:  However, the analogy between rats and humans is  simplistic at best

Conclusion:   KEY factors in determining human behavior are Human adaptability and cultural factors, NOT population density.

To strengthen the conclusion, we need to show in crowded cities, there is relatively little antisocial behavior. That will support the conclusion that population density is NOT KEY importance in determining human behavior.

E states exactly the same, hence is correct.

Hope it helps.

Juz2play · Answer

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above? -  This is a Justify the Conclusion question , but not strengthening question. To answer this type of question, there is a formula: Premise + Correct Answer Choice = Conclusion. If you choose answer (A), it would read, "A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding.  Testing new products on laboratory rats has sometimes led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health.  It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior." Does this logically make sense? No!

However, if you choose answer (E), it would read, "A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding.  In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior . It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior." Does this logically make sense? Yes! So, the correct answer is (E). Hope this helps!

Damion123 · Answer

A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding. It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

Given: Earlier : High population density --> Urban Anti Social behavior. Corroborated by studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding.

Conclusion: Analogy betn Rates and Human is simplistic and does not consider human adaptability and cultural factors.

A. Testing new products on laboratory rats has sometimes led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health.  Irrelevant

B. Rats thrive in the crowded conditions of human urban society.  Irrelevant

C. Rats also exhibit unnatural behavior in conditions of extreme isolation.  Irrelevant

D. Although rat behavior does change in crowded conditions, what results is not random violence but a new, radically different social order.  Irrelevant

E. In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior.   Two cases: in one Cause but no effect and in 2nd effect but no Cause. That means there are other factors other than crowding which are also in play to cause anti social behavior.

wishalsp333 · Answer

A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding. It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

A. Testing new products on laboratory rats has sometimes led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health.
B. Rats thrive in the crowded conditions of human urban society.
C. Rats also exhibit unnatural behavior in conditions of extreme isolation.
D. Although rat behavior does change in crowded conditions, what results is not random violence but a new, radically different social order.
E. In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior.

In question stimulus, "laboratory rats, which exhibit  randomly  violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding", it says randomly which is the deciding factor in the answer choice.

in option D :
D. Although rat behavior does change in crowded conditions, what results  is not random violence  but a new, radically different social order. - It is not random. So D is eliminated.

in option E :

E. In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely – populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior. -  Here randomness is seen. So E is correct option.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja , can you please help me with A option here?

It said at the end - led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health -> It weakens the simplistic view theory.

E is better than A, as E directly attacks it, but I wanna know if my understanding of A is correct or not.

guddo · Answer

A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban antisocial behavior with high population density, and to support this with studies of laboratory rats, which exhibit randomly violent behavior under conditions of extreme overcrowding. It has since become obvious that the analogy between rats and humans is simplistic at best, and leaves out considerations like human adaptability and cultural factors that are of key importance in determining human behavior.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

Which of the following, if true, best supports the conclusion the author presents in the passage above?

The passage says people used to blame rising urban antisocial behavior on high population density, using overcrowded rat studies as support. The author concludes that this rat to human analogy is too simplistic, because human behavior is shaped by factors like adaptability and culture, not just crowding.

(A) Testing new products on laboratory rats has sometimes led to unnecessary alarm about their adverse effects on human health.

This is about whether rats are good models for human health effects. It does not speak to whether rat overcrowding studies support claims about human antisocial behavior, so it does not support the author’s conclusion.

(B) Rats thrive in the crowded conditions of human urban society.

Even if true, it mainly says the rat overcrowding story is questionable. It does not directly support the author’s conclusion about humans, because it gives no evidence about what actually drives antisocial behavior in human communities.

(C) Rats also exhibit unnatural behavior in conditions of extreme isolation.

This says rats can behave strangely in another extreme condition. That does not support the author’s conclusion that the rat to human analogy is simplistic for explaining urban antisocial behavior.

(D) Although rat behavior does change in crowded conditions, what results is not random violence but a new, radically different social order.

This undermines the idea that overcrowding makes rats randomly violent, so it weakens the earlier “rat evidence.” But it still does not directly support the author’s conclusion about humans, because it does not show that density is a poor predictor of antisocial behavior among humans.

(E) In some extremely crowded cities there is relatively little antisocial behavior, whereas some sparsely populated rural communities have very high rates of such behavior.

This most directly supports the author’s conclusion  because it shows that  population density alone  does not reliably predict antisocial behavior in humans, so using overcrowded rats as the key support for the human claim is overly simplistic.

Answer: (E)

A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A few decades ago it was popular to link dramatic increases in urban a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia