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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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.
28 Jan 2026, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
55% (01:52) correct
45%
(01:53)
wrong
based on 163
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Traditional hatcheries raise fish in featureless environments and subject them to dull routines, whereas new, experimental hatcheries raise fish in visually stimulating environments with varied routines. When released into the wild, fish from the experimental hatcheries are bolder than those from traditional hatcheries in exploring new environments and trying new types of food. Fish raised in the experimental hatcheries, therefore, are more likely to survive after their release.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) It is economically feasible for hatchery operators to expose fish to greater visual stimulation and to more varied routines.
(B) The quality of the environments into which hatchery-raised fish are released has little effect on the fish’s survival rate.
(C) At least some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they are timid in their foraging for food.
(D) Hatchery-raised fish that are released into the wild do not eat many different types of food.
(E) No fish in the wild lives in visually stimulating environments.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) It is economically feasible for hatchery operators to expose fish to greater visual stimulation and to more varied routines.
(B) The quality of the environments into which hatchery-raised fish are released has little effect on the fish’s survival rate.
(C) At least some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they are timid in their foraging for food.
(D) Hatchery-raised fish that are released into the wild do not eat many different types of food.
(E) No fish in the wild lives in visually stimulating environments.
28 Jan 2026, 21:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question Type:
Necessary Assumption
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: fish raised in the experimental hatcheries are more likely to survive after release. Premises: the experimental hatcheries expose fish to more visual stimulation and varied routines as compared to traditional hatcheries. When released, fish from experimental hatcheries are bolder in exploring new environments and trying new foods.
Answer Anticipation:
There's a big gap here between being bolder and being more likely to survive. We can predict either a bridge assumption that links the two concepts (fish that are bolder are more likely to survive) or a defender assumption that defends against an objection to this link up (going into new environments and eating new foods doesn't make fish more likely to die).
Correct answer:
C
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is a classic trap answer for Necessary Assumption questions. The economic feasibility of a course of action is almost never necessary to assume. Consider the negation of this one: it's not economically feasible. Who cares? That just means the experimental hatcheries aren't a model for the future of commercial hatcheries.
(B) Does this have to be true in order to conclude that there's something else effecting their survival rate too (the hatchery they're from)? Nope. Eliminate.
(C) Does this one have to be true? Hard to say, maybe, so negate to be sure. What if no fish from traditional hatcheries ever die because of their foraging timidness. Well, if that's true, then how can we conclude that the fish from experimental hatcheries have a survival advantage just because they're bolder? We can't, so this negation ruins the argument, making it the correct answer.
(D) The degree of this one is troubling: "need to eat" and "many different types" make this an unlikely candidate. To see why, negate: one hatchery-raised fish can survive eating only a few types of food. Does that blow up our argument? Nope. Remember, when negating a conditional statement, just raise the possibility of a non-conforming case. If that non-conforming case doesn't ruin the argument, the answer is wrong.
(E) Another conditional, so negate with a non-conforming case! If one fish in the wild lives in a visually boring environment, does that ruin our argument? No way.
Takeaway/Pattern:
There are a lot of ways a necessary assumption can be phrased, so don't freak out if you make a solid prediction but don’t see it among the answer choices. Work wrong to right, keeping an eye out for classic traps and degree issues (A, D, and E), and stay focused on the exact task of the question. Ask yourself "does this really need to be true of the argument to work?" If the answer is no, eliminate (B). If you're not sure, negate.
Necessary Assumption
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: fish raised in the experimental hatcheries are more likely to survive after release. Premises: the experimental hatcheries expose fish to more visual stimulation and varied routines as compared to traditional hatcheries. When released, fish from experimental hatcheries are bolder in exploring new environments and trying new foods.
Answer Anticipation:
There's a big gap here between being bolder and being more likely to survive. We can predict either a bridge assumption that links the two concepts (fish that are bolder are more likely to survive) or a defender assumption that defends against an objection to this link up (going into new environments and eating new foods doesn't make fish more likely to die).
Correct answer:
C
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is a classic trap answer for Necessary Assumption questions. The economic feasibility of a course of action is almost never necessary to assume. Consider the negation of this one: it's not economically feasible. Who cares? That just means the experimental hatcheries aren't a model for the future of commercial hatcheries.
(B) Does this have to be true in order to conclude that there's something else effecting their survival rate too (the hatchery they're from)? Nope. Eliminate.
(C) Does this one have to be true? Hard to say, maybe, so negate to be sure. What if no fish from traditional hatcheries ever die because of their foraging timidness. Well, if that's true, then how can we conclude that the fish from experimental hatcheries have a survival advantage just because they're bolder? We can't, so this negation ruins the argument, making it the correct answer.
(D) The degree of this one is troubling: "need to eat" and "many different types" make this an unlikely candidate. To see why, negate: one hatchery-raised fish can survive eating only a few types of food. Does that blow up our argument? Nope. Remember, when negating a conditional statement, just raise the possibility of a non-conforming case. If that non-conforming case doesn't ruin the argument, the answer is wrong.
(E) Another conditional, so negate with a non-conforming case! If one fish in the wild lives in a visually boring environment, does that ruin our argument? No way.
Takeaway/Pattern:
There are a lot of ways a necessary assumption can be phrased, so don't freak out if you make a solid prediction but don’t see it among the answer choices. Work wrong to right, keeping an eye out for classic traps and degree issues (A, D, and E), and stay focused on the exact task of the question. Ask yourself "does this really need to be true of the argument to work?" If the answer is no, eliminate (B). If you're not sure, negate.
29 Jan 2026, 10:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Explanation
Traditional hatcheries: featureless environments, dull routines: fish are timid when exploring new environments or trying new foods after release.
Experimental hatcheries: visually stimulating, varied routines: fish are bolder in exploring and trying new foods.
Conclusion: Fish from experimental hatcheries are more likely to survive after release.
Identify the assumption
The conclusion assumes that boldness in exploring new environments and trying new foods improves survival rates. This is not explicitly stated, maybe in the wild, boldness could be dangerous (predators, eating toxic food, etc.). So the argument assumes that boldness in these specific ways (exploring new environments, trying new food types) is advantageous for survival, not detrimental.
(A) Economic feasibility is irrelevant to the conclusion about survival. Not required.
(B) Quality of release environments has little effect on survival: This isn’t needed. Even if environment matters, the argument compares two hatchery types in the same release environment. The conclusion is comparative: “more likely to survive.” Not an assumption.
(C) This looks good: The conclusion is that experimental-hatchery fish are more likely to survive. If no fish from traditional hatcheries die from timidity in foraging, then boldness would not explain a survival advantage. Thus, the argument assumes timidity in traditional-hatchery fish does cause some of their deaths. That’s required to conclude boldness gives a survival edge.
(D) Hatchery-raised fish released into the wild do not eat many different types of food. Not relevant, argument is about trying new types (boldness), not how many they eat normally.
(E) No fish in the wild lives in visually stimulating environments. Clearly false and irrelevant.
Answer: C
Traditional hatcheries: featureless environments, dull routines: fish are timid when exploring new environments or trying new foods after release.
Experimental hatcheries: visually stimulating, varied routines: fish are bolder in exploring and trying new foods.
Conclusion: Fish from experimental hatcheries are more likely to survive after release.
Identify the assumption
The conclusion assumes that boldness in exploring new environments and trying new foods improves survival rates. This is not explicitly stated, maybe in the wild, boldness could be dangerous (predators, eating toxic food, etc.). So the argument assumes that boldness in these specific ways (exploring new environments, trying new food types) is advantageous for survival, not detrimental.
(A) Economic feasibility is irrelevant to the conclusion about survival. Not required.
(B) Quality of release environments has little effect on survival: This isn’t needed. Even if environment matters, the argument compares two hatchery types in the same release environment. The conclusion is comparative: “more likely to survive.” Not an assumption.
(C) This looks good: The conclusion is that experimental-hatchery fish are more likely to survive. If no fish from traditional hatcheries die from timidity in foraging, then boldness would not explain a survival advantage. Thus, the argument assumes timidity in traditional-hatchery fish does cause some of their deaths. That’s required to conclude boldness gives a survival edge.
(D) Hatchery-raised fish released into the wild do not eat many different types of food. Not relevant, argument is about trying new types (boldness), not how many they eat normally.
(E) No fish in the wild lives in visually stimulating environments. Clearly false and irrelevant.
Answer: C
