Researches have noted that panda bears that have given birth

Question

Researches have noted that panda bears that have given birth to live young live longer in the wild. Therefore, these researches have concluded that giving birth to live young increases a panda's lifespan.

The argument makes which of the following assumptions?

A. Pandas that have given birth to live young will not be killed by predators.

B. Since male pandas cannot give birth, female pandas live longer than male pandas.

C. Pandas that are already likely to live longer are also not more likely to give birth to live young.

D. Female pandas are not likely to die while giving birth.

E. Pandas that have given birth to multiple live young are likely to live even longer than pandas that have given birth to only a single live offspring.

chaudhurysr · Accepted Answer

I completely agree to this explanation, but I would like to add a little more to it. Let me explain: In causation, there are 4 cases: 1) X causes Y 2) Y causes X 3) Z causes X & Y 4) X & Y are not co-related. Let's say Panda giving birth to live young = X, Longlife = Y. The author has concluded that X causes Y. Now, in order to support this conclusion, any one of the below possibilities will be required: i) something that directly supports 1) i.e. X causes Y, OR The revised option C (with the NOT) i.e. "Pandas that are already likely to live longer are also NOT more likely to give birth to live young" is basically the negation of case 2), or in other words, possibility ii), which is absolutely correct. One may argue that either ii), iii) and iv) must be combined together or i) standalone be chosen in order to conclude the author's conclusion. But conclusion is not what is asked here. The question is asking about assumption, and ii) is one of the assumptions. Hence ii), i.e option C (with the NOT), is one of the CORRECT answers. Other correct answers could also have been assumptions that supported i) or iii) or iv). Those assumptions are not mentioned in the answer choices though. I noticed some people chose option A. I found option A very tricky! Initially (when NOT wasn't there in option C), even I felt that option A was directly supporting case 1) , and hence was the correct answer. But I later thought that even if predators do not kill pandas that give birth, still that doesn't guarantee long life. Pandas may die early for some other reason. Option A) neither negates all possibilities of an early death, nor indicates any biological change in the pandas (e.g. release of some hormones) that, in general, would result in healthier life and /or longer life span. Hence A is incorrect. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with the way I am thinking. Any feedback will help me correct/improve my way of thinking. By the way, in case you agree, feel free to give kudos. That won't hurt!

sayantanc2k · Answer

Responding to a PM:

X = giving birth to live young
Y = longer lifespan.
X and Y are observed to happen together. Conclusion: X causes Y.
In the abve argument, the assumption is: Y does not cause X. (If Y causes X, then X should not be causing Y)
i.e. (already) having longer life span does  not  cause giving birth to a live young.

"NOT" is missing in option C - C should be:

Pandas that are already likely to live longer are also NOT more likely to give birth to live young.

As a matter of fact, option C as mentioned in the question is a weakening statement:
X and Y happen together.
Conclusion: X causes Y.
In the above argument, a weakening statement is: Y causes X.

aditya8062 · Answer

i marked C ,mostly because other choices are just plain wrong. however C also seems wrong to me and i guess the maker of this question wanted to say the following C 
 C modified  :   Pandas that are already likely to live longer are  NOT  more likely to give birth to live young 
i marked C believing that the question writer wanted to convey what i have written in modified C
u have cited the source as manhattan so i will ask u to check if u have done the mistake as MANHATTAN hardly makes mistakes!

singhaldheeraj · Answer

c should be the correct one as

A-AGAINST THE EVIDENCE FIRST LINE OF THE ARGUMENT-ITS A GENERAL TRUTH GIVEN
B-OUT OS SCOPE -TAKING ABOUT MALE/FEMALE
C-CORRECT
D-IRRELEVANT
E-ATTRACTIVE BUT TRAP AS MULTIPLE BIRTH AND COMPARISON IS NOT DISCUSS IN THE ARGUMENT

GIVE KUDOS FOR APPRECIATION AND REPLY

chaudhurysr · Answer

I re-worded my response above in order to make it more clear. Yes, C in current form is the correct answer. In addition to that, I was trying to explain other possible correct answers, and also why I thought A is incorrect, even though it initially seemed to be a correct answer to some people, including myself.

srikalivarapu · Answer

Researches have noted that panda bears that have given birth to live young live longer in the wild. Therefore, these researches have concluded that giving birth to live young increases a panda's lifespan.

The argument makes which of the following assumptions?

After so much research scientists found child bearing Pandas live longer. (conclusion)

A. Pandas that have given birth to live young will not be killed by predators. 
Negate ->A. Pandas that have given birth to live young ARE killed by predators. so what ? nothing to do with conclusion of child bearing.

B. Since male pandas cannot give birth, female pandas live longer than male pandas.

Negate B --> Female pandas live SHORTER lives than Male Pandas --> so what it could be true what if the female did NOT have a child. This could lead to a shorter life in line with researchers conclusion.

C. Pandas that are already likely to live longer are also not more likely to give birth to live young. if we negate this option then the conclusion will fall apart.

Negate C --> Pandas that are already long living( due to eating habits example) are LIKELY to have children . If this happens the whole research of the done saying child bearing causes pandas to live longer will become useless. Hence we have to assume there is NO other reasons other than this particular one that causes long life.

D. Female pandas are not likely to die while giving birth.

Negate D --> Female pandas are likely to die to while giving birth. so what ? if they survive the birth they can live longer

E. Pandas that have given birth to multiple live young are likely to live even longer than pandas that have given birth to only a single live offspring.

Negate E --> Pandas that have given birth to multiple live young are NOT likely to live even longer than pandas that have given birth to only a single live offspring.
to me this is out of scope. not discussed in the argument.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION (C) Pandas that are already likely to live longer are not more likely to give birth to live young: https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=58881 On Assumption questions, your task is to find the answer that reflects something the author assumes to be true in order to draw his or her conclusion. The author assumes that one thing causes another: that giving birth to live young causes the panda to live longer. Perhaps it’s the case that the pandas who are healthier in the first place are more likely both to give birth to live young and to live longer. Answer (C) correctly articulates the author’s assumption, though the negative language is tricky. The author assumes that pandas that are likely to live longer in general are not also more likely to give birth to live young. This has to be assumed in order to conclude that giving birth to live young causes a panda to live longer. Answers (A) and (D) explain why these female pandas live as long as or longer than other female pandas, but since it is a fact that pandas that have given birth to live young live longer, these answers don’t really have an impact on the argument. Answer (B) refers to male pandas, but the argument is only about female pandas; this distinction is irrelevant. Answer (E) might be a good answer if you were asked to strengthen the conclusion, but this information about multiple vs. single births is an irrelevant comparison. The conclusion doesn’t hinge upon the number of live births, just whether the panda has given live birth at all. 2020-11-10_18-59-28.png

itsarudolf · Answer

Can you please explain why it is not D?

I chose C, but I can't exclude D on 100% solid grounds. People talk here about the timeframe D is mentioning "while" and the conclusion mentions after, but in my opinion the conclusion follows after D and therefore nothing should be wrong with it. Please, help.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

Let me try to address your query.

The conclusion of the passage is: Giving birth to live young increases a panda's lifespan.

The premise on which this conclusion is based is: Panda bears that have given birth to live young live longer in the wild.

In other words, because bears that give birth to live young live longer, the conclusion is drawn that it is the giving birth to live young that causes the longer lifespans. Clearly, the longer lifespans could be due to any number of other reasons as well, and any assumption that rules this out would be the correct answer. Option (C) does this well (without naming an alternative cause), by saying that such alternative causes do not exist.

Option (D) states: Female pandas are not likely to die while giving birth.

This does not fill the gap between the original premise and conclusion and does not rule out any alternative scenario. If we negate this ("Female pandas  are likely  to die while giving birth"), it does not negate the original conclusion of live births causing longer lifespans due to the observed fact. Hence, option (D) cannot be the correct option.

Hope this helps.

djangobackend · Answer

D - when negated female pandas are likely (>50% chance) to die while giving birth- still it weakens the argument surely but doesn't shatter it. what is likelihood is only 51 percent vs 100 percent? in case of 51 it will weaken moderately while for 100 percent it will demolish, the assumption should demolish the argument when negated.

A - negated - pandas will get consumed by predators - OKAY but still at what age? what if they get eaten at end of their longggg life. then what? thus it cannot be an assumption

C - negation - "pandas already likely to live longer" basically means pandas with longer lifespan are more likely to give birth to live young. so it reverses the logic of the argument i.e., its not that giving birth lead to longer lifespan but instead those with longer lifespan were already more likely to give birth. so demolishes the argument hence the assumption.

Researches have noted that panda bears that have given birth

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Researches have noted that panda bears that have given birth

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

My Rewards