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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
12 Oct 2020, 09:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (01:57) correct
35%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 511
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Antibiotics are standard ingredients in animal feed because they keep animals healthy and increase meat yields. However, scientists have recommended phasing out this practice, believing it may make antibiotics less effective in humans. If meat yields are reduced, however, some farmers will go out of business.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
(A) If scientists are correct that antibiotic use in animal feed makes antibiotics less effective in humans, then some farmers will go out of business.
(B) If antibiotic use in animal feed is not phased out, some antibiotics will become ineffective in humans.
(C) If the scientists' recommendation is not heeded, no farmers will go out of business due to reduced meat yields.
(D) If the health of their animals declines, most farmers will not be able to stay in business.
(E) If antibiotic use in animal feed is phased out, some farmers will go out of business unless they use other means of increasing meat yields.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
(A) If scientists are correct that antibiotic use in animal feed makes antibiotics less effective in humans, then some farmers will go out of business.
(B) If antibiotic use in animal feed is not phased out, some antibiotics will become ineffective in humans.
(C) If the scientists' recommendation is not heeded, no farmers will go out of business due to reduced meat yields.
(D) If the health of their animals declines, most farmers will not be able to stay in business.
(E) If antibiotic use in animal feed is phased out, some farmers will go out of business unless they use other means of increasing meat yields.
12 Oct 2020, 11:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) If scientists are correct that antibiotic use in animal feed makes antibiotics less effective in humans, then some farmers will go out of business.
Incorrect
Scientists believe it may make antibiotics less effective, so the practice to be phased out does not need their belief to be correct.
(B) If antibiotic use in animal feed is not phased out, some antibiotics will become ineffective in humans.
Incorrect
It will not be ineffective rather it will be less effective.
(C) If the scientists' recommendation is not heeded, no farmers will go out of business due to reduced meat yields.
Incorrect
If X then Y as per the last statement, where X seems to be sufficient condition.
But we can't say if not X then not y. Which the option is pointing at.
(D) If the health of their animals declines, most farmers will not be able to stay in business.
Incorrect
Nothing has been mentioned about the relationship between health and MOST farmers .
(E) If antibiotic use in animal feed is phased out, some farmers will go out of business unless they use other means of increasing meat yields.
Correct IMO
Reduced meat yield due to phasing out of antibiotic is the cause of some farmers losing their business.
So if they find any other means of getting th same yield, they won't lose business due to the phasing out of the practice.
Will wait for OA
Posted from my mobile device
Incorrect
Scientists believe it may make antibiotics less effective, so the practice to be phased out does not need their belief to be correct.
(B) If antibiotic use in animal feed is not phased out, some antibiotics will become ineffective in humans.
Incorrect
It will not be ineffective rather it will be less effective.
(C) If the scientists' recommendation is not heeded, no farmers will go out of business due to reduced meat yields.
Incorrect
If X then Y as per the last statement, where X seems to be sufficient condition.
But we can't say if not X then not y. Which the option is pointing at.
(D) If the health of their animals declines, most farmers will not be able to stay in business.
Incorrect
Nothing has been mentioned about the relationship between health and MOST farmers .
(E) If antibiotic use in animal feed is phased out, some farmers will go out of business unless they use other means of increasing meat yields.
Correct IMO
Reduced meat yield due to phasing out of antibiotic is the cause of some farmers losing their business.
So if they find any other means of getting th same yield, they won't lose business due to the phasing out of the practice.
Will wait for OA
Posted from my mobile device
Marcab
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Last visit: 22 Jan 2021
Posts: 840
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 221
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Simon '15 (M$)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
12 Oct 2020, 21:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
A = antibiotics
HA = healthy animals
IMY = increased meat yields
Cause ----------> Effect
A--------------------> HA+IMY
However, scientists have recommended phasing out antibiotics due to fear their use may make antibiotics less effective in humans. We are warned that some farmers will go out of business if meat yields are reduced, which expresses a conditional relationship, which I have shared below.
I also would like to highlight that the first sentence of the stimulus tells us that antibiotics are currently standard practice, and that they currently are causing increased meat yields. In other words, meat yields have already been increased by the standard practice of antibiotics in animal food. This suggests that a reduction in antibiotics in animal food would lead to some reduction in meat yields (a return to how it was before the increased meat fields). So meat yields would be reduced, which sets off our conditional resulting in some farmers going out of business.
NMYI= No meat yield increased, meaning they are reduced from the prior levels caused by antibiotics
FOB = some Farmers Out of Businesses
Sufficient---------> Necessary
NMYI------------> FOB
Since the use of antibiotics in animal feed increases meat yields and if the scientists’ recommendation is implemented, the cause of increased yields will be gone, and the meat yields will be reduced. Though, the logical opposite of "reduced" is "not reduced" (as opposed to "increased"). The conditional should indeed be written:
meat yields reduced---------->FOB
Therefore, if meat yields are reduced, some farmers will go out of business. So, we can infer that if the scientists’ recommendation is implemented, some farmers will go out of business.
E is the correct answer.
HA = healthy animals
IMY = increased meat yields
Cause ----------> Effect
A--------------------> HA+IMY
However, scientists have recommended phasing out antibiotics due to fear their use may make antibiotics less effective in humans. We are warned that some farmers will go out of business if meat yields are reduced, which expresses a conditional relationship, which I have shared below.
I also would like to highlight that the first sentence of the stimulus tells us that antibiotics are currently standard practice, and that they currently are causing increased meat yields. In other words, meat yields have already been increased by the standard practice of antibiotics in animal food. This suggests that a reduction in antibiotics in animal food would lead to some reduction in meat yields (a return to how it was before the increased meat fields). So meat yields would be reduced, which sets off our conditional resulting in some farmers going out of business.
NMYI= No meat yield increased, meaning they are reduced from the prior levels caused by antibiotics
FOB = some Farmers Out of Businesses
Sufficient---------> Necessary
NMYI------------> FOB
Since the use of antibiotics in animal feed increases meat yields and if the scientists’ recommendation is implemented, the cause of increased yields will be gone, and the meat yields will be reduced. Though, the logical opposite of "reduced" is "not reduced" (as opposed to "increased"). The conditional should indeed be written:
meat yields reduced---------->FOB
Therefore, if meat yields are reduced, some farmers will go out of business. So, we can infer that if the scientists’ recommendation is implemented, some farmers will go out of business.
E is the correct answer.
