A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc

Premises:
Malicitis is being diagnosed with increasing frequency.
The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago.

Conclusion:
The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
There are already more than enough funds allocated so no point allocating more till the time the ones currently unused are used. It weakens the conclusion.

B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
Say in a population of 100,000 people, 10 people are suffering from the disease. Say 4 are at a very early stage, 2 at early stage and full blown stage. Till now, tests were available which could detect the disease at full blown stage only so only 4 cases were known. Now a new test can detect early stages too so all 10 cases are known. The number of known cases suddenly increase though the occurrence of disease is the same. So extra funds call may not be valid if sufficient funds are already allocated.

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
If the population doubles, the number of cases may double too. Say in a population of 200,000, 20 people would be suffering from the disease. Note that it is still as rare as before - 1 in 10,000 gets it. Hence, the call for extra funds may not be in order (only from the point of our argument since our argument says that it is not as rare as before. The point of morality is not discussed)

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
Certainly has no impact on our argument.

E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years
The conclusion says that the Govt needs to allocate more funds. But if a private foundation has already committed sufficient funds, the Govt may not need to add more.

Answer (D)
_________________

This is a nice question!!

A. Weakens. States that allocating more funds won’t help as the current funds itself is not being utilized well.

B. Weakens the contention that allocation of more funds will help treat and prevent malicitis. It says that a new test has been employed this year to detect malicitis at an earlier stage in the development of disease. A logical outcome of this implementation would only be an INCREASE in number of positive cases DETECTED (NOT CREATED). This does not necessarily mean that number of people LIKELY to suffer from malicitis has simultaneously increased. Quite possible that the potential number of future cases has actually dropped and with the rise in number of cases actually detected, we have finally reached a point where we are sure of eradicating the disease completely. Let’s take numbers:

4 years ago:

Total number of people in the town likely to be affected and actually affected: 1000

Total number of cases actually detected and undergoing treatment: 200

Probability of malicitis being actually reported: 20%

This year:

Total number of people in the town likely to be affected and actually affected: 500

Total number of cases actually detected and undergoing treatment after the new method was introduced: 450…Just 50 cases not diagnosed (perhaps because this year is over by the time the remaining 50 could have been brought under the scanner)

(In retrospect)Total number of cases that could have been actually detected without the new method: 20% probability i.e. 100 only

This means that the introduction of the method has actually increased the probability of detecting malicitis early and is a welcome measure towards treating and preventing malicitis. Hence, the addition of more funds may not really help much as number of new cases is already on decline…

C. Weakens. This states that the number of new cases since the last five years is zero. That is, the cases reported this year are recurrent cases, ones which were first detected within a time-frame of not more than five years ago. Hence, there is no cause for allocation of more funds as far as at least ‘prevention of malicitis’ is concerned since the data obtained so far suggests that there are anyways NO NEW CASES REPORTED THIS YEAR (probably malicitis is already eradicated, except for those who are already infected).

E. Weakens. If a private foundation has already pledged an amount for research for the next five years, allocation of surplus funds would not help much unless it be shown that treatment/prevention and research potential worth more than this pledged amount for the next five years actually exists.

D. DOES NOT WEAKEN! This option definitely does not weaken the argument. However, it does not necessarily strengthen it too. At best, it leaves the argument unaffected. Unless it be proved that the funds reviewed four years ago are insufficient to match the current levels of treatment and prevention of malicitis, we really can’t say that D strengthens the argument. As long as it does not weaken the argument, it is the correct answer!

Looks legit to me!

The argument concludes that we need to spend more on malicitis prevention. The only evidence provided is that the number of diagnosed cases of malicitis has doubled in recent years. This is a deeply flawed argument--no surprise, as "each weakens EXCEPT" questions tend to be the most fragile arguments on the GMAT.

Fortunately, the flaws largely fall into a few classic patterns. First: overlooked alternatives. Is increased spending really the only solution? Second: scope shift. We have an increase in diagnosis; the argument assumes that the only possible cause is an increase in the actual occurrence of the disease, as opposed to an increase in reporting. Finally: number versus percent. An increase in the number of cases is insufficient data without corresponding population data. We care about per person frequency of the disease, not just the number of cases.

A and E directly attack the first assumption by suggesting alternatives to government funding. B attacks the second, suggesting that increase in reporting is due to increased detection, not increased prevalence. And C attacks the third, indicating that the increase in occurrence of the illness is primarily due to an increase in the size of the population.

That leaves D, which really isn't relevant at all. Who cares what experts decided four years ago? Lots could have happened between now and then, invalidating the experts judgement--funds might well still be necessary. D is the only answer that is not a weakener, and so it is correct.

Hope this helps!

Hi, here is my way....try to find an option which is LEAST weaken or IMPERTINENT....
A----funds are currently under-utilized........weaken the conclusion that government should now allocate more funds may not reach the target.
D----a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago.......its only a piece of statement about what was done with the funding by the experts before...neither weaken or strengthen the inference and the conclusion....

Hope it will work with u

My pick is D.

Premise 1: More people are being diagnosed with malicitis.
Premise 2: The number of people diagnosed with the disease is more than double the number reported four years ago.
Conclusion: The government needs to spend more money for treatment and prevention of this disease.

We are asked to pick one that does not weaken the argument. This means the correct answer either strengthens (unlikely because this is too easy) the argument or just has no effect on the argument (more likely). GMAT question writers tend to disguise the correct answer by making it look like it has an effect on the conclusion, so careful reading is needed to avoid such tricks.

A. Funds already available for research in malicitis are currently underutilised. Weakens. If the funds set aside to combat malicitis is underutilised then there is no need to increase the amount of funding.

B. A new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease. Weakens. This one is a little trickier. Just reading it once it seems as if the government should increase funding because the new test shows great promise. But wait - it says "employed for the first time this year" - so technically it's already been budgeted for. Combine that with the fact that the test will detect the disease sooner = cheaper to treat = means that no additional funding will be needed.

C. The number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years. Weakens. In the premise it states that the number of cases doubled compared to four years ago. However choice C states that the increase in the # of cases is in line with the overall population.

D. A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago. Correct - No Effect The correct answer is the one that either strengthens the argument or has no effect. Let's look at this statement - experts reviewed funding four years ago. What's the conclusion from this statement? Nothing. We don't know whether the committee felt funding is adequate or inadequate. All we know is that they reviewed funding four years ago. Written this way, choice D has no effect on the argument and is the correct answer. Had it been written "A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago and found it inadequate" then it would weaken the argument.

E. A private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years. Weakens. Easiest choice to cross off. Should be pretty obvious since it states that there is an alternative source of funding.

Good question. I had the same issue when I first read the question stem. I think what makes GMAT CR questions difficult is that in real life we are used to making inferences from things we hear and read because we are used to getting incomplete information. However, on the GMAT everything you read must be taken at face value. It's either it weakens the argument on its own or it doesn't.

With that in mind, let's look at Choice D.

A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago.

What that says, literally, is that a bunch of people looked at the funding situation four years ago. That's it. We don't know the outcome of the meeting, whether if committee felt that government needed to spend more money on treating the disease four years ago or if it felt that there was enough funding to deal with the disease even if the no. of cases were to increase by 10x. Since we don't know the outcome of the meeting, Choice D on its own neither weakens nor strengthens the argument.

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion EXCEPT

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized (Weakener)
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease (Weakener)
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years (Neutral neither Weakener nor Strengthener )

\(\frac{2}{10} ---> \frac{5}{25}\) cases more than doubled but ratio is still same... so I do not see how it weakens the argument.. I consider it neutral.

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago (Strengthener )
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years(Weakener)

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

Task is what 'strengthens' the argument.


A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
Then if Govt allocate more funds also, it won't be of any help. Weaken.

B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
It can now be prevented at earlier stage and hence, no need of additional funding. Weaken.


C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years

It suggests the proportion of affected people has not increased.
No need of additional funding. Weaken.

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago

This suggests new review is required and followed by more govt. funding.
Strengthen.

E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

No need of govt funds then. Weaken.

mikemcgarry, GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

I understand why D does not weaken the argument but I'm still confused about why B and C are weakeners.

In B:
If more cases are detected, then won't they need more money? I do understand that an earlier detection might cost less. But nevertheless, all the detected cases would need medical attention, costing money. Suppose, if the number increased from 500 (original number) to 1000 (detected with new test), then additional 500 patients would need to be taken care of. As a result, more money would be needed.

In C:
5 years back: Population = 100k, Diagnosed: 10% => Patients to treat = 10k
Now: Population = 1000k, Diagnosed: 10% => Patients to treat = 100k
Even though we have the "same fraction of the population", won't be still need to cure those extra patients?

Thanks!

The conclusion is that the government should allocate funds to research and development.

We are asked to find an answer that does NOT WEAKEN this - so either strengthens the need for funding allocation or is neutral.

A is incorrect because it argues against funding - its available already.
B is incorrect because it argues against any further action - a new test is now available.
C is incorrect because it suggests that this isn't a new problem. By analogy, if it is expected that 20% of the population get sick every year from the common cold, then why would further action be required if this 20% has remain unchanged for the last 5 years?
D is correct because it tells us that the last time a review was undertaken was a long time ago (4 years), so there may be a need to review funding now.
E is incorrect because it tells us that someone has already supplied funds, so we don't really need government funding.

Bunuel MartyTargetTestPrep daagh sayantanc2k GMATNinja GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354

It seems all three options B C and D if built with good background story can somehow not weaken the conclusion.

Is it a well drafted question experts?

This is a gmatprep question, so unless the tag is wrong this is a good question. I haven’t read it or solved it, but I’ll say that it’s probably a good question

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Instead of tagging every expert under the sun why don't you use the "Request expert" response function at the top.

Secondly, you shouldn't need to spin a story - thats how you get questions wrong.

(B) is a solid weakener. A weakener does not have to destroy the argument. It just has to be a good reason to question the validity of the conclusion, and (B) is such a reason.

(C) is not as good. While it indicates that the incidence of the disease has not increased, it does not change the fact that the number of cases of the disease is increasing. I guess, since it indicates that the incidence of the disease is not increasing, (C) is a reason to question the validity of the conclusion. This choice is not ideal though, since it's not a clear weakener.

(D) is clearly not a weakener. The fact that experts reviewed the funding years ago is virtually meaningless. We don't even know what the committee's conclusion was. It could even have been that more funding is warranted.

So, (B) is clearly a weakener. (C) could be better, but is passable, and the question is saved by the fact that (D) is clearly not a weakener, and so, the correct answer is clear.
_________________

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.
All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

Premise: The question refers to malicitis, a rare disease, which is increasing rapidly. It says that number of reports this year is twice to that of our years ago.

Conclusion: ‘Should’ indicates that this is conclusion. It says that govt. needs to allocate more funds for the disease’s treatment and prevention.

To verify that our analyses is correct we can do the X → Y test where first two sentences equate to X and last sentence equates to Y.

Question stem asks for options which doesn’t weakens the argument conclusion. So, it may be something which is neutral to argument or strengthens the conclusion.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized – WRONG. Previous funds availability shows that new funding would be bad decision. So, it weakens straight forward and hence wrong.
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease – WRONG. It might be possible according to this option that new technology detects the disease at an early stage which was not possible 4 years ago. Usage of word ‘considerably’ modifies the early detection thus makes it extreme. And finally, logically also an external factor results in high detection rate. Hence this one is WRONG for various reasons.
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years – WRONG. A ratio-wise distribution means population has increased accordingly. Personally, this is quite close as far correctness is concerned as it somewhat points towards increasing the funding(for the sole reason that population has increased – number of reported people has increased). But if that’s so does it mean that early detected people with the disease need similar amount of funding as others. All in all, here an additional assumption is required which makes the option wrong for that reason.
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago – CORRECT. As it happened in past, it is irrelevant. It does strengthens the conclusion that increased cases of disease needs a relook on the funding part so that sufficient funds are available to prevent and treat the disease but that’s something we need to assume. If sufficient funds are available even though experts reviewed the funding four years ago, this becomes a neutral point to make.
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years – WRONG. Funding data if analyzed by govt. would show fewer cases as a private foundation has funded ‘sufficiently’ for next five years. So, govt. might not need to further provide any funds.

Answer (D).
_________________

Hi Experts,

Though I agree that D is the obvious answer, I wonder why C can be a weakener.
As dabaobao mentioned, let's say that :

5 years back: Population = 100k, Diagnosed: 10% => Patients to treat = 10k
Now : Population = 1000k, Diagnosed: 10% => Patients to treat = 100k

Even though the fraction is the same, the number of case increase.

If one case need to use $10K to heal then 5 years ago it would take $10k * 10k(persons) and now it would take $10* 100k(persons).

The above suggests that there need to be more budget to deal with this issues.
Isn't true that the government should now allocate more funds for the treatment?
If this is the case, then the statement cannot weaken the argument.

Please explain.

Thank you.

In C option, then also the cases have been increased even if the fraction remains the same. So, shouldn't the Government allocate more funds?

The argument concludes that the government should allocate more funds. And we have to find four those weaken and leave the one that doesn't weaken - that's our answer. This left-out option can be a strengthener or out of scope or distortion or anything but a weakener.

Option Elimionation -

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized - Why do we need more if the current funds are underutilized? Weakens. That is not our answer.
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease - Two ways to look at it.
1. If this year we already have developed a technology to identify, then it can identify cases at a very early stage. We are already making progress, so why do we need more funds?
2. OK, if you say we still need funds. Then let's look at it from the point of view that the new test may have highlighted more cases that were earlier not counted because there was no test. So the cases have increased not because malicitis is spreading but because now we have the test to test the earlier undetected cases. Weakens. That is not our answer.

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years - the population increased, and the proportion is the same. Makes sense. Weakens. That is not our answer.
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago - Irrelevant. Remember, we are looking for anything but a weakener. This is our answer.
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years - Then why do we need money from the government? Weakens. That is not our answer.