Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 07:24

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2012
Posts: 26
GMAT Date: 10-12-2012
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [1] , given: 30

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] New post 25 Sep 2012, 06:17
1
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (02:29) correct 57% (01:30) wrong based on 219 sessions
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly





Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Expert Post
6 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 4877
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1157

Kudos [?]: 5381 [6] , given: 165

Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 03:50
6
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.


If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 137
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 27 [1] , given: 48

Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] New post 25 Sep 2012, 07:07
1
This post received
KUDOS
Look at [B] from a mathematical point of view - for example in DS questions when we are talking about a unique value of X, and the equation is quadratic, you would know that X could take 2 values so you cannot find a unique X.

Similarly here, when it qualifies people {who intentionally continue to expose themselves to UV sunlight and thus absorb larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past} - You do not know what was the number of people doing it in past and what is the number of people doing that intentional exposure today.

So when the question asks which of these if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year? [B] would hang in between.

But [D] solves the puzzle pretty clearly.
_________________

Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much.
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 67
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 19 [1] , given: 48

Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] New post 25 Sep 2012, 09:05
1
This post received
KUDOS
methevoid wrote:
Look at [B] from a mathematical point of view - for example in DS questions when we are talking about a unique value of X, and the equation is quadratic, you would know that X could take 2 values so you cannot find a unique X.

Similarly here, when it qualifies people {who intentionally continue to expose themselves to UV sunlight and thus absorb larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past} - You do not know what was the number of people doing it in past and what is the number of people doing that intentional exposure today.

So when the question asks which of these if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year? [B] would hang in between.

But [D] solves the puzzle pretty clearly.


Looks to me that option A answers the question better.
Option D talks about number of men and women, both of whom should safely qualify as adults. And the passage does make a statement saying that the number of adults going in for an intentional exposure to UV due to sun-tan has decreased.
_________________

Live Life the Way YOU Love It !! :)


GmatPrep1 [10/09/2012] : 650 (Q42;V38) - need to make lesser silly mistakes.
MGMAT 1 [11/09/2012] : 640 (Q44;V34) - need to improve quant pacing and overcome verbal fatigue.

Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 269

Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 03:33
rohitgarg wrote:
Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.


Hi Rohit

You are missing a point. Only exposure does not cause cancer, large amount of doses cause cancer. Now read option B again. In the past the same people who intentionally exposed themselves were taking less doses, so no cancer to them. But now the people expose themselves for larger amount of time, so cancer.

Hope it helps !
:-D
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 269

Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 03:35
rohitgarg wrote:
Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.


Hi Rohit

You are missing a point. Only exposure does not cause cancer, large amount of doses cause cancer. Now read option B again. In the past the same people who intentionally exposed themselves were taking less doses, so no cancer to them. But now the people expose themselves for longer of time, so cancer.

Hope it helps !
:-D
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2354
Followers: 279

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] New post 20 Jan 2014, 02:09
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 465
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 58

CAT Tests
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] New post 30 Jun 2014, 11:03
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.


If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.

Hi Karishma,
Don't you find it that option D is actually negating the statements?
If it's stated that far less adults are exposing themselves intentionally, than what does it matter if more men are exposing while the number of women is decreasing?
Either way, the total number is decreasing...
No?
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 4877
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1157

Kudos [?]: 5381 [0], given: 165

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] New post 30 Jun 2014, 19:02
Expert's post
ronr34 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.


If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.

Hi Karishma,
Don't you find it that option D is actually negating the statements?
If it's stated that far less adults are exposing themselves intentionally, than what does it matter if more men are exposing while the number of women is decreasing?
Either way, the total number is decreasing...
No?


You are correct but that is the point - it is an EXCEPT question:
"... could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer despite the decrease in intentional exposure EXCEPT"
So (D) does not explain the stability in the incidence. It doesn't matter whether number of men is increasing or number of women is decreasing. The point is that total number is decreasing. So it doesn't explain the stability in the incidence of skin cancer.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical   [#permalink] 30 Jun 2014, 19:02
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic Consulting Career | Safe Schools joseph0alexander 1 06 Oct 2014, 08:56
1 Betting ggarr 2 20 Mar 2010, 15:39
a career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical vinayn 13 14 Jul 2008, 21:36
A career in the medical profession, which requires an prasannar 0 14 Mar 2008, 20:00
1 A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical GMATBLACKBELT 6 10 Nov 2007, 12:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.