Weaken: In 1960’s studies of rats, scientists found that crowding

why is E incorrect?

(E) Some of the rhesus monkeys in the experiment were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances.

i was thinking on the lines that if the monkeys were in their natural circumstances this would have led to fighting but since they were test subjects this led to coping behaviour instead of fighting...

B is the correct answer while C seems like an out of scope statement. The conclusion is made for the crowded situations while C refers to uncrowded one.

With the weakening question on the conclusion, we might have the rephrasing of the negative conclusion as 'aggressive behavior might still appear in crowded monkeys because that..."

B is the only one fitting with the negative conclusion statement.

There are a couple of issues with answer choice (E). First, take another look at the conclusion of the argument from the passage:
This conclusion makes a statement about how crowded conditions affect aggressive impulses in primates. It does not specific how these conditions came about, or if they are likely to occur in the wild. So, it is not relevant to consider whether the levels of crowding are likely to occur in natural circumstances -- it only matters what does happen to primates when they find themselves in crowded conditions.

Also, answer choice (E) tells us that "some" of the monkeys were subjected to unnaturally crowded conditions. Does "some" mean just a few of the monkeys, or a large minority, or half? We have no way of knowing what "some" really means in this context, so we cannot say how much it impacts the conclusion.

For these reasons, answer choice (E) does not "most seriously weaken" the argument.

I hope that helps!

Its a GMAT Prep question. please tag

______________________________________
Done. Thank you.

I still have a question about C and hope someone can answer.
I don't know whether my intepretation of C is a stretch, but here is my understanding.

C All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions.
C basically says that coping behavior can still be found when crowding of R monkeys is not here, this directly weakens one of the reasoning that is used to support the conclusion.
The arguer cites that crowding causes coping behavior in R monkeys as an evidence to support the conclusion that it is doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

So if C weakens the first link between crowding and coping behavior that conclusion depends, how does C not weaken the argument? And Obvoiusly my logic isn't correct here, can someone please shed some lights on this?
One thing I did notice is that the conlcusion mentions evidence from R monkeys, so the casaulity between crowding and coping is not an necessary assumption for the argument???

Someone please help.

I chose C because the monkey behavior is same in both crowded and uncrowded situations .So it's their very nature to remain calm. So From their behavior it can't be judged that crowding does not increase aggressive behavior among animals

I have one way to justifying B and knocking off c.
The argument says that the evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

C only talks about how coping behaviours existed before and now it is increased. It does not speak of increased aggressive impulses.

Now B on the other hand : suggests that the coping behaviour was now adopted to Forstall aggression. Which means aggressive impulses increased in crowded spaces, but did not surface because coping was adopted. Which weakens the notion that "doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates."

In 1960’s studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, it was not such attacks that increased significantly, but rather instances of "coping" behavior, such as submissive gestures, avoidance of dominant individuals, and huddling with relatives. Therefore the evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) The rhesus monkeys is the species of monkey that is more prone to fighting

(B) Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them

(C) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions

(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in more attacks than the others

(E) Some of the rhesus monkeys in the experiment were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances.

This question really boggled my mind and I spent 30 minutes analysing it. After pondering upon why B is the correct answer I think I might have boiled it down to this:

- The conclusion states "Therefore the evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates." Okay. So the author concludes that he is doubting the fact that CROWDING causes increase in the AGGRESSION.
- If I think I'm having a conversation with the author and I want to weaken his conclusion, one of my argument could be, "Okay. You're saying that CROWDING does NOT causing an increase in the AGGRESSION. But what if it does cause it? And what if CROWDING does cause an increase in the AGGRESSION but another factor is in play that does not let it occur in this particular case? Maybe a factor that you missed and that led you to conclude that CROWDING causes AGGRESSION. ( I know I'm using the words crowding and aggression too much but please bear with me). This factor in option B is the "Coping behavior".

Let me know what you guys think of this explanation. I've tried being thorough with it.

Conclusion- The evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

Implication- Crowding does not significantly increase aggressive impulses in primates.

We need to find an option which shows that crowding does in fact increase aggressive impulses in primates.


A. Neutral- Who cares right? If the Rhesus monkey is more prone to fighting, it does not show that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses among them.

B. Weakener- If they adopted coping behavior to forestall acts of aggression, then it definitely shows that the crowding increased aggressive impulses among the monkeys due to which they had to resort to coping behavior. This is the correct answer.

C. Neutral- Again who cares? If similar coping conditions are found in rhesus monkeys in uncrowded conditions, it in no way shows that crowding leads to an increase in aggressive impulses in primates. Completely irrelevant.

D. Neutral- Even if some monkeys were involved in more attacks than others, the argument clearly states that the overall number of attacks did not increase significantly, so an extremely neutral option.

E. Strengthener- If the monkeys are subject to levels of crowding unlikely in natural circumstances, it all the more shows that crowding does not lead to aggressive behavior among them, because if they coped under extreme conditions, they are all the more likely to cope in natural circumstances, and hence show no aggressive impulse.

Correct Answer: (B) Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them.

Why B is correct:
This option directly weakens the conclusion that "crowding doesn't significantly increase aggressive impulses in primates." If the monkeys developed coping behaviors specifically to prevent aggression that would otherwise occur due to crowding, then crowding actually does increase aggressive impulses - the monkeys are just managing these impulses through coping mechanisms. This undermines the core conclusion by suggesting that the lack of observed aggression doesn't mean aggressive impulses aren't present or increased.

Why other options are incorrect:
(A) The rhesus monkey is the species of monkey that is more prone to fighting
This actually strengthens the argument. If rhesus monkeys are naturally more aggressive yet still didn't show increased attacks when crowded, it would further support the conclusion that crowding doesn't increase aggression in primates.
(C) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions
This is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is based on the increase in coping behaviors in crowded conditions, not whether these behaviors exist in uncrowded conditions. The fact that these behaviors also occur elsewhere doesn't tell us anything about why they increased in the experiment.
(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in more attacks than the others
This is too limited in scope. Individual variation in aggression doesn't address the overall pattern observed across the population. The argument is about whether crowding increases aggression in primates generally, not about variations among individuals.
(E) Some of the rhesus monkeys in the experiment were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances
This doesn't weaken the argument's conclusion about the relationship between crowding and aggression. The unnaturalness of the crowding levels doesn't explain away the observed pattern of increased coping rather than increased aggression.

Hi experts KarishmaB GMATNinjaTwo IanStewart egmat
Can we simply reject the option C on the basis of reasoning that knowing "coping behavior" in crowded or uncrowded conditions for rhesus monkeys doesn't help us know whether aggressive implulses will happen in primates or not. It's like knowing X for an event Y and commenting whether Y will happen or not.
On the other hand, option B says that X (coping) happens because Y (aggression) happens, thus, creating a doubt on the argument's conclusion.

Please let me know if above reasoning is correct.

Yes, exactly.

Look at the conclusion: Therefore the evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

It has nothing to do with coping, only to do with aggression. It says aggressive impulses do not increase in primates. We have to weaken it. So any option that doesn't address "aggression/aggressive impulses/fighting" in some way is irrelevant. We have to find an option that indicates that aggressive impulses may increase in primate too when crowded.

(B) Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them

This option says that coping behavior is adopted so that aggression doesn't increase. This implies that aggressive impulses may increase in crowds and hence the monkeys show coping behavior (stay close together and submissive) so that aggression doesn't actually take place.

(C) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions

Option (C) simply says that the same coping behavior is found in non crowded monkeys too.
Well, that doesn't say anything about aggressive impulses. Irrelevant.

Hence (B) works.

Conclusion: crowding doesn't significantly increase aggressive impulses in primates. (Causal reasoning)
Premise: in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, it was not such attacks that increased significantly, but rather instances of "coping" behavior, such as submissive gestures, avoidance of dominant individuals, and huddling with relatives.
Assumption: Coping behaviour increase was not due to attack increased attack. (Found it very difficult)
Prethinking- Counters the above assumption eg. mentions attack increased due to crowding and that's why coping behaviour was adopted. crowding --> attacks --> coping.
Why correct? B) in line with pre thinking saying that the attack still increased due to crowding thereby weakening the conclusion.
Why wrong? A) Doesn't answer that Rhesus are more prone to fighting in crowded condition.
C) This tells us that coping mechanism is same for both crowded and uncrowded condition however doesn't answer whether in crowded condition coping mechanism is due to increased aggressive behavior.
d) supports the fact that attacks occurred but doesn't address whether attacks occurred due to increased crowding.
e) doesn't mention anything about increased aggression due to high crowding even if it is abnormal.

To determine which option most seriously weakens the argument, we need to identify which statement undermines the conclusion that crowding does not significantly increase aggressive impulses in primates based on the behavior of rhesus monkeys. The conclusion hinges on the observation that rhesus monkeys display coping behaviors rather than increased aggression when crowded.

Let's evaluate each option:

(A) The rhesus monkey is the species of monkey that is more prone to fighting.
- This option suggests that rhesus monkeys might naturally be inclined to fight more than other species, but it doesn't directly address the behavior under crowded conditions. It does not weaken the argument because it doesn't provide evidence that crowding increases aggression.

(B) Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them.
- This option weakens the argument because it implies that aggression is a significant concern in crowded conditions and that coping behaviors are a strategy to prevent aggression. Thus, it suggests that aggressive impulses might indeed be heightened by crowding, but are managed through coping strategies.

(C) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions.
- This option indicates that coping behaviors are not exclusive to crowded conditions, but it doesn't directly address whether crowding increases aggression. It doesn't weaken the argument about crowding and aggressive impulses.

(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in more attacks than the others.
- This option suggests variability in aggression among individuals, but it doesn't necessarily indicate an overall increase in aggression due to crowding. It doesn't weaken the argument that crowding does not significantly increase aggressive impulses.

(E) Some of the rhesus monkeys in the experiment were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances.
- This option questions the applicability of the experiment to natural settings, but it doesn't directly address whether crowding increases aggressive impulses. It doesn't weaken the argument regarding the relationship between crowding and aggression.

The option that most seriously weakens the argument is (B), because it suggests that coping behaviors are specifically adopted to prevent aggression, indicating that aggressive impulses are indeed present but are being managed, contrary to the conclusion that crowding does not increase aggressive impulses.

In 1960’s studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, it was not such attacks that increased significantly, but rather instances of "coping" behavior, such as submissive gestures, avoidance of dominant individuals, and huddling with relatives. Therefore the evidence from rhesus monkeys makes it doubtful that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Let’s knock this out, people! We have recent experiments with rhesus monkeys that appear to go against the findings of previous studies. Based on previous studies (involving rats), one would have expected rhesus monkeys in crowded conditions to result in more attacks amongst them but instead we see a lot more instances of “coping” behavior. The argument ends off by saying this MAKES IT DOUBTFUL that crowding significantly increases aggressive impulses in primates.

We’re asked to looking for a weakener, something that makes it likely/possible crowding DOES significantly increase aggressive impulses in primates.

Let’s take a step back. Imagine you are placed in an area that makes you more anxious and you therefore start using a breathing technique to calm yourself down. Does that mean the area doesn’t make you anxious simply because your heart rate stays relatively the same?

(A) The rhesus monkeys is the species of monkey that is more prone to fighting
Nope, not what we’re looking for. Even IF rhesus monkeys are more prone to fighting (let’s say they fight once a day compared to other monkeys that fight once a week), we could still get a sense whether their aggressive impulses have increased (e.g. by how much MORE they fight in crowded conditions). Basically, it doesn’t matter how aggressive the animal is at a default level.

(B) Coping behavior was adopted by the crowded monkeys to forestall acts of aggression among them
Yep, this is the answer. If rhesus monkeys in a crowded area increasingly try to avoid getting into fights (but the number of total fights per day remains the same), that would mean the aggressive impulses in the group have increased. In a sense, this could mean the coping behaviors are a REACTION to increased aggressive impulses because of the crowding.

(C) All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions
Nope, this doesn’t harm the argument. If, however, this statement said that the level of coping behavior was the SAME in both crowded and uncrowded areas, it may have had some potential.

(D) Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in more attacks than the others
Not what we’re looking for. This could be true for any group of monkeys in both crowded and uncrowded conditions. In addition, it doesn’t throw cold water upon the findings of the recent experiments (i.e. that the number of attacks in the crowded groups does not significantly increase).

(E) Some of the rhesus monkeys in the experiment were subjected to levels of crowding that are unlikely to occur in natural circumstances.
Nope. The argument would still holds even if the experiment put rhesus monkeys in crowded conditions unlikely to be seen in the wild. The argument is about how crowding affects aggressive impulses – not whether the level of crowding was likely in the wild or not.