CAT Critical Reasoning Practice question with Solution 31

more recently they diverged from a common ancestor. Then we get a specific case study— some conclusions based on this rule. Scientists figure that first bears and raccoons diverged, then red pandas diverged from raccoons, then giant pandas diverged from bears. What can we infer? Well, the scientists concluded that giant pandas diverged from bears more recently than they diverged from raccoons (i.e. they diverged from raccoons along with all the other bears before they diverged from the other bears). According to the rule, therefore, scientists must have observed (D), the fact that giant pandas are more genetically similar to bears than they are to raccoons.

(A) We have no idea what scientists “originally thought” about the genetic relationship between giant pandas and raccoons, so we can’t infer (A).

(B) We’re told that giant pandas “diverged” from other bears millions of years ago; that gives us no reason to infer that scientists therefore consider them a species of bear.

(C) The stimulus speaks of divergences occurring “a few million years later” and “30 to 50 million years ago”; that certainly does not qualify as establishing the timing “within a few years.”

(E) Since bears (including the ancestors of giant pandas) diverged from raccoons a few million years before red pandas did, we would expect red pandas to be more closely related to raccoons genetically than are giant pandas.