Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 02:28

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 30 [6] , given: 24

Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 10:02
6
KUDOS
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (02:21) correct 40% (01:32) wrong based on 1088 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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 toll 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
[Reveal] Spoiler:
How did you eliminate C? And why is E the answer?

Other posts on MGMAT forum and this forum say that C states something we already know. I disagree.
the reasoning is:
Yes, we know vaccine was contaminated. But whether it could have an effect 40-50 years down the line is not known. So, knowing that those vaccine still have traces of SV40 gives a subtle new information that the virus can actually survive 40-50 years. So, it strengthens the hypotheses.

vaccine was contaminated with virus SV40 in 1960 ---> (Virus is still present in those vaccine samples of 1960 i.e. virus can survive 40-50 years) ---> vaccine is the source of virus found in cancer tissue.

To make things clear I tried to form an analogy:

Now, if we have to strengthen this hypothesis and 2 options are:

1. In a recent interview David mentioned that he remembers what he had read in that book.
2. Tom who never read the book, could not answer the question.

which one of the option would one choose?

Analogy:
David - Polio vaccine of US
Tom - Polio vaccine of Finland
Reading the book - contamination by virus
answering the question in quiz - virus in mesotheliomas
mentioned that he remembers - still show traces
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"Choose to chance the rapids and dance the tides"

Last edited by WoundedTiger on 13 Oct 2014, 03:23, edited 1 time in total.
Explanation in Spoiler
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 89
Location: United States
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [4] , given: 5

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 14:31
4
KUDOS
iamseer wrote:
How did you eliminate C? And why is E the answer?

Other posts on MGMAT forum and this forum say that C states something we already know. I disagree.
the reasoning is:
Yes, we know vaccine was contaminated. But whether it could have an effect 40-50 years down the line is not known. So, knowing that those vaccine still have traces of SV40 gives a subtle new information that the virus can actually survive 40-50 years. So, it strengthens the hypotheses.

vaccine was contaminated with virus SV40 in 1960 ---> (Virus is still present in those vaccine samples of 1960 i.e. virus can survive 40-50 years) ---> vaccine is the source of virus found in cancer tissue.

To make things clear I tried to form an analogy:

Now, if we have to strengthen this hypothesis and 2 options are:

1. In a recent interview David mentioned that he remembers what he had read in that book.
2. Tom who never read the book, could not answer the question.

which one of the option would one choose?

Analogy:
David - Polio vaccine of US
Tom - Polio vaccine of Finland
Reading the book - contamination by virus
answering the question in quiz - virus in mesotheliomas
mentioned that he remembers - still show traces

Wow. That's a long post. I threw out C right away and will try to explain why, but I can tell you are quite passionate about the answer so I may fail in convincing you. Here it goes.

Time that goes by has little to do with this argument. This excerpt could be referring to people with the from the 1960s, or people today. Also, in the first sentence, it says that it’s a “slow-developing cancer.” If infected in 1960, the virus could slowly develop and show up later. Also, it never says anything about when people contracted the cancer. So I have to agree with the OE that C is stating something that we already knew, that the vaccines were infected and that it’s slow developing.

E is a hard reach for me, but it’s the best answer from what there is to choose from. A better choice (not given) would have said something about people that got the cancer were vaccinated for polio in 1960. But unfortunately there is no write in option on the GMAT.
Intern
Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 30 [1] , given: 24

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 20:20
1
KUDOS
thanks for reading the long post and replying back promptly and objectively.

And yes, you got it right. I am passionate about the answer option but only to the extent of it's logical worth.

Even I threw out C traversing from top to bottom. But on reaching E all options were eliminated So went back to find something.

E looked far fetched b'cos it says effect is absent and cause is absent too. Couldn't quite grasp, how absence of cause and effect, strengthen that cause-effect relationship.

But you are right, E is the best of all choices available. It does increase the chances that vaccine might be the source of virus.

kudos +1
_________________

"Choose to chance the rapids and dance the tides"

Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 89
Location: United States
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 5

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 20:31
Much appreciated! And I was just kidding about the lost post comment. Type away dude!
Manager
Status: SC SC SC SC SC.... Concentrating on SC alone.
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 240
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT Date: 12-30-2011
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 47

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 06:31
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Phew... After a big dilema between E and C went with C.

But E wins. Though not convinced much, but will take the causal effect relationship route.

Researchers hypothesize that vaccine -> virus in tissue.

Option E eliminates the possibility of the event happening even when the cause doesn't occur. (Power score route )
_________________

D- Day December 30 2011. Hoping for the happiest new year celebrations !

Aiming for 700+

Kudo me if the post is worth it

Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 220
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 166

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2011, 07:24
not yet convinced with E ... Could anyone elaborately explain why E is the correct answer ?

Thanks
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 165 [5] , given: 20

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2012, 09:12
5
KUDOS
Practicegmat wrote:
not yet convinced with E ... Could anyone elaborately explain why E is the correct answer ?

Thanks

First let us understand what the argument is about. All that is hypothesized is THE SOURCE OF virus; the argument does NOT INTEND to verify if the virus IS ALSO causing the cancer: it is just taken for granted (i.e., the virus can also contribute) and we can safely ignore it for the discussion.

Now, we need to prove that there is a possibility that the virus could have been due to contaminated vaccine.

We have 3 sets of people:

--> In US, two sets of people: ill people with contaminated vaccine + a virus and healthy people with clean vaccine + NO VIRUS.
--> In Finland, one set of people: ill people with clean vaccine + NO VIRUS.

from those 2 premises, we can conclude that the virus is due to contaminated vaccine and this is exactly what researchers hypothesized in the last sentence.

Note: there could be some other reason for the virus presence, but in the given context we can not eliminate the possibility of contaminated vaccine.

A very good question. Got confused for a some time.

If this helped you, consider KUDOS
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Posts: 143
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 24

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2012, 08:52
E is good
Intern
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 08-30-2012
GPA: 2.64
WE: Research (Retail Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 3

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2012, 18:12
THank you all for the explanation. they all helped me alot in this question.

What do you think the level of this question is?
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 368
Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 368 [0], given: 50

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2012, 00:25
No cause....No effect. So E strengthens the argument.
_________________

Regards
SD
-----------------------------
Press Kudos if you like my post.
Debrief 610-540-580-710(Long Journey): http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-600-540-580-710-finally-achieved-in-4th-attempt-142456.html

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 175

Kudos [?]: 1335 [0], given: 62

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2012, 22:36
Any more explanations why C is incorrect?
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 464
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V0
GPA: 3.23
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 433 [1] , given: 11

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2013, 05:58
1
KUDOS
iamseer wrote:
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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 toll 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

We need something that helps that it is the virus from the vaccine.
We already know the vaccine is contaminated.

A. This does nothing to help the argument. out!
B. this is great news but what about the contaminated vaccine and the infected sample tissue. This is our concern. Out!
C. Contaminated vaccine is not sufficient to prove that the virus in the tissue was transmitted from the vaccine. We already know vaccines are contaminated. We need evidence that the tissues were infected through the vaccine.
D. This only proves that it is not the asbestos. But doesn't add to vaccine infecting tissue. Out!
E. this is it! Another vaccine without contamination and tissue samples without virus... This is a good additional evidence. Although it is not full proof, it helps.

_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2014
Posts: 71
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 77

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2014, 23:13
mbaiseasy wrote:
iamseer wrote:
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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 toll 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

We need something that helps that it is the virus from the vaccine.
We already know the vaccine is contaminated.

A. This does nothing to help the argument. out!
B. this is great news but what about the contaminated vaccine and the infected sample tissue. This is our concern. Out!
C. Contaminated vaccine is not sufficient to prove that the virus in the tissue was transmitted from the vaccine. We already know vaccines are contaminated. We need evidence that the tissues were infected through the vaccine.
D. This only proves that it is not the asbestos. But doesn't add to vaccine infecting tissue. Out!
E. this is it! Another vaccine without contamination and tissue samples without virus... This is a good additional evidence. Although it is not full proof, it helps.

Thxs,this is a tough question,really help
Director
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 728
Location: India
GPA: 3.21
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 697 [0], given: 723

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2014, 03:37
iamseer wrote:
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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 toll 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

I had a tough time understanding the problem...What I understood was Asbestos is the primary cause but apart from asbestos, a virus SV40 is another factor for the Cancer M...Is this correct assessment of the passage..The wording that SV is contributing cause is some what confusing...
The passages goes on to conclude that the source of virus SV 40 found in samples of Mesotheliomas decades later was contaminated vaccine...
_________________

“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

Current Student
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 300
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 242

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 03:08
someone please put the OA in spoiler tag..so annoying..
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 638
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 98

Kudos [?]: 537 [4] , given: 80

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2014, 13:08
4
KUDOS
As Ron Purewal says, we , in certain cases, need to create a noise free premise.
So a flab-free premise says: SV40(CAUSE)---> Cancer(effect)
Now, as per causality rules, when the cause is not there the effect should not be there
option E says, In poland, No SV40 virus(nocause) -- > No Cancer (No effect)
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2013
Posts: 10
GRE 1: 322 Q159 V163
GPA: 4
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 26

Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2015, 20:06
I don't think the argument is discussing the causal relation between SV40 and Mesothelioma. Although I was misled into thinking the same after I saw the words 'cause' and 'one of the possible causes' and also because the argument is discussing two things - cause of mesothelioma and cause of entry of SV40.
I think
SV40 (also) causes Mesothelioma = taken for granted

argument is about how SV40 entered the population.
SV40 = found in some samples of Mesothelioma
SV40 entered the population through a contaminated vaccine

A conclusion about 'the mode of entry of SV40' is made based on the 'incidence of SV40 in Mesothelioma cases in US'

Anything that would strengthen should say:
SV40 did not enter in any other way than the vaccine (option E addresses this indirectly). In those countries where there was no possible way for SV40 to enter, Mesothelioma cases did not have any SV40 in their tissues. It says SV40 virus was not some sort of side-effect of Mesothelioma. Had it been so, this population will have it as well. If this population had SV40, but without the contaminated vaccine - then it means that Mesothelioma patients have the propensity to contract the virus SV40. Then we cannot assert that SV40 entered US population only through vaccine.
I think that choice E strengthens the argument in this manner.
I'm no expert. just wanted to share how I came to the choice E.
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 188
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 65

Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2015, 21:12
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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 toll 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

Let me try to explain it.

we have to strengthen the hypothesis that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.

The argument discusses that infection is done due to SV40 virus, since in the US 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. Further it goes on to say that in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus.

The only way the hypothesis can be strengthened by the similar fact showing contaminated vaccine was the source of virus found in mesotheliomas.

Option C addresses only one part of the total argument that relates to the presence of the virus. In other words, recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.. This choice partially strengthens the argument.

whereas if you look at option E, it address the whole. It says that vaccine was not contaminated and samples don't have SV 40. It completely strengthens the argument by touching two parts, vaccine with virus and its presence in mesotheliomas.

Hope it helps.
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 58

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2015, 07:03
iamseer wrote:
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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 toll 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
[Reveal] Spoiler:
How did you eliminate C? And why is E the answer?

Other posts on MGMAT forum and this forum say that C states something we already know. I disagree.
the reasoning is:
Yes, we know vaccine was contaminated. But whether it could have an effect 40-50 years down the line is not known. So, knowing that those vaccine still have traces of SV40 gives a subtle new information that the virus can actually survive 40-50 years. So, it strengthens the hypotheses.

vaccine was contaminated with virus SV40 in 1960 ---> (Virus is still present in those vaccine samples of 1960 i.e. virus can survive 40-50 years) ---> vaccine is the source of virus found in cancer tissue.

To make things clear I tried to form an analogy:

Now, if we have to strengthen this hypothesis and 2 options are:

1. In a recent interview David mentioned that he remembers what he had read in that book.
2. Tom who never read the book, could not answer the question.

which one of the option would one choose?

Analogy:
David - Polio vaccine of US
Tom - Polio vaccine of Finland
Reading the book - contamination by virus
answering the question in quiz - virus in mesotheliomas
mentioned that he remembers - still show traces

C is already stated in the argument,though put in a different way.We cannot use a premise stated as a fact in in the argumentas support.E is the best choice among the rest.
Director
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 503
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 92

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2016, 11:21
iamseer wrote:
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing case, since in the US 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. Researchers 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?

Category – Strengthen (Cause & Effect)

Premise-1: Primary cause for mesothelioma is asbestos BUT SV40 virus ALSO contributes.

Premise-2: In 1960, vaccine was contaminated with SV40.

Conclusion: Vaccine (cause) => virus in mesotheliomas (effect)

Correct choice can be in any of the follwoing forms:
#1. A choice that says there is no other cause for the above effect. OR
#2. A choice that says there is no other effect for the above cause.
#3. A choice that says there is no cause for the above cause.
#4. A choice that says if no cause then no effect.

A) SV40 is widely used as a research toll in cancer laboratories.
If a cancer laboratory uses SV40 then we are not sure about the connection of this usage with vaccine having SV40.

B) Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40
Weakner. It says vaccine cannot have SV40, so what researchers are saying is wrong. Had the question asked for weakner this would have been the correct choice.

C) Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.
This is rephrase of the premise “1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus”. We need a new evidence to support the conclusion. So what already is stated cannot be the answer here becauseThis is not an “coclusion” or “inference” question.

D) In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.
argument says that asbestos is primary cause but SV40 virus also contributes. But does this any says that vaccine causes mesotheliomas? No!

E) In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40
This is parallel to “if no cause then no effect.”. - CORRECT
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
helpful post means press '+1' for Kudos!
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Re: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for   [#permalink] 03 Jun 2016, 11:21

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for 5 11 Nov 2011, 07:06
1 Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a 7 28 Aug 2009, 11:14
Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a 5 28 Aug 2009, 11:00
31 Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of 46 11 Dec 2007, 06:28
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of 7 06 Jun 2007, 07:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by