All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Although exposure to asbestos is the primary ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' hypothesis?
  • a)
    SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.
  • b)
    Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.
  • c)
    Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.
  • d)
    In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.
  • e)
    In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a ...
To determine which option most strongly supports the researchers' hypothesis, let's analyze each option and see how it relates to the hypothesis:
(A) SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.
  • This option does not provide direct support for the hypothesis that the contaminated polio vaccine was the source of the SV40 virus found in mesotheliomas decades later. It merely mentions the use of SV40 as a research tool, which is not directly relevant to the hypothesis.
(B) Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.
  • This option suggests that the current manufacturing technique of the polio vaccine prevents contamination with SV40. While this information is important for vaccine safety, it does not provide strong support for the hypothesis about the source of SV40 found in mesotheliomas.
(C) Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.
  • This option suggests that recently discovered samples of the contaminated polio vaccine still show traces of the SV40 virus. While this information is interesting, it does not directly support the hypothesis about the source of SV40 found in mesotheliomas decades later.
(D) In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.
  • This option provides information about a small percentage of mesothelioma cases where there is no history of asbestos exposure. While this information is relevant to the disease, it does not directly support the hypothesis about the source of SV40 found in mesotheliomas.
(E) In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.
  • This option directly supports the researchers' hypothesis. It states that in Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated with SV40, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40. This suggests a strong correlation between the contaminated polio vaccine and the presence of SV40 in mesotheliomas.
Therefore, option (E) provides the strongest support for the researchers' hypothesis and is the most relevant piece of information in relation to the source of SV40 found in mesotheliomas.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.The passage states which one of the following about underground oil reservoirs?

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.The author uses the phrase “the hazards of insufficient knowledge” primarily in order to refer to the risks resulting from

The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells’ potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry’s concern for the purity of the wells’ oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil contaminated water.The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth’s surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well’s location was based on a poor understanding of the area’s subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area’s groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.The author’s attitude regarding oil well drilling regulations can most accurately be described as

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researches believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Reseachers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers hypothesis?a)SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.b)Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.c)Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.d)In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.e)In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup