In certain parts of rural Mongolia, many villagers suffer from fungal

(A) Once fungal infections of the foot have been detected, the effectiveness of treatment varies from person to person.- Out of scope...The aim is to detect the fungal infection first
(B) The pamphlet was sent to all rural villagers, even those that practice good foot hygiene.- out of scope
(C) Fungal infections of the foot are much more common in men than in women, yet both sexes received the pamphlet.- Out of scope
(D) People who do not use proper hygiene to care for their feet are unlikely to perform weekly checks of their feet for fungal infections.-correct... if the villagers dont care about the infection itself its unlikely that they will bother to raed the pamphlet and check their foot for the infection
(E) A previous pamphlet from the public health department of Mongolia that warned of the dangers of smoking met with limited success in all parts of Mongolia.- we cannot compare two different events...

Official Explanation

My confusion with this one was with D. If people who do not use proper hygiene don’t do weekly checks, how do we know they would continue to not do so after reading the brochure? This was my confusion.

I actually chose A because a central tenant of the plan is a single, uniform solution outlined in the pamphlet to solve fungal infection for everyone in rural Mongolia. So if people react to the treatment differently, isn't it possible that the treatment will not help everyone? I think the problem with this thinking was that whilst not everyone might react positively, at least some would meaning that on the whole at least some fungal infection would be cured, strengthening the argument on aggregate. Just want to know if my reasoning here is correct.

You have laid out great reasons for choosing A as the answer, but you went too far and made too many assumptions in your reasoning.

Based on the question stem we are looking for "the best criticism of the pamphlet as a method of achieving the public health department's GOAL." Based on the passage the goal of the public health department is "to combat the problem of UNTREATED fungal foot infections," not to HELP EVERYONE and eliminate the infection with treatment.

Sure, we can make the leap that the ultimate goal of the public health department is to help everyone to avoid and to eliminate fungal foot infections all together, but that is not the stated goal in the passage. Make no assumptions about motive and ultimate goals, only use what is stated.


A. Once fungal infections of the foot have been detected, the effectiveness of treatment varies from person to person.
- The "effectiveness of the treatment" is not within the scope of the stated goals of the public health department, only TREATMENT is within scope.

D. People who do not use proper hygiene to care for their feet are unlikely to perform weekly checks of their feet for fungal infections.
- The Best Criticism – The weakness that this criticism exploits is the assumption that people who already have poor foot hygiene will take the time to check for fungal foot infections. The reason they may have a fungal foot infection is because they have poor foot hygiene. Therefore, no detection = no treatment = public health department's GOAL IS NOT ACHIEVED.


Hit me with a Kudos if this helped you.

This question asks for the best criticism of the pamphlet put out by the public health department in Mongolia, so this is a Weaken question.

The stimulus states that, due to poor foot hygiene, many Mongolian villagers suffer from fungal foot infections. The public health department plans to distribute a pamphlet with instructions on weekly foot checks to help combat this problem.

When a stimulus lays out a plan, find a reason why the plan won't work on it's own terms.

(D) weakens the plan by suggesting that those most in need of weekly self-examinations are precisely those who are least likely to follow the advice of the pamphlet and perform the checks.

(A) is not a criticism of the pamphlet. As long as people read the pamphlet, check for an infection, and seek medical help, the pamphlet will be a success - even if treatment is ineffective in some patients.

(B) and (C) are similar in that they say that the pamphlet was sent to more people than was necessary. This may be a waste of paper, but it would not prevent the pamphlet from achieving its goal. Just because women and people with good hygiene received the pamphlet does not prevent the pamphlet from being effective for men and those with poor hygiene.

In (E), the limited success of the previous pamphlet does not have a bearing on the current pamphlet. There's not enough in this statement to know whether previous experience with pamphlets can be generalized and applied to the current situation.

From the phrase "pamphlet as a method of achieving the public health department's goal", doesn't this mean question is more about criticizing the usage of pamphlet as method to share information?

If it is the case, isn't E a right answer?

No, the question is not asking us to restrict our criticism to the medium of information used. It's simply asking us to show why using this particular pamphlet may not help with the stated goal of reducing these infections.

E doesn't make it clear why the previous campaign failed, so it's hard to know what to make of the information. Imagine if I said that calling someone on the phone was not an effective way of persuading them to do something, because I called my friend last week and he didn't do what I asked. There are far too many unknowns here!

D, on the other hand, gives us a concrete reason to suspect that people who are at risk will not follow through on the recommendations of the pamphlet. This exploits the feasibility problem that we tend to see with all plan-based CR. Compare this to the following official CR: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-eurasian ... 27266.html Here, we have to strengthen the argument, but to do so, we have to ask "Will people really use these cards?"

Why will the pamphlet not work, if distributed among the people of Mongolia.

We need to find a reason for that

D.People who do not use proper hygiene to care for their feet are unlikely to perform weekly checks of their feet for fungal infections.
This gives us the best reason.People wont care much even if they are given the pamphlet.

E.A previous pamphlet from the public health department of Mongolia that warned of the dangers of smoking met with limited success in all parts of Mongolia.
Smoking is OOS

A. Once fungal infections of the foot have been detected, the effectiveness of treatment varies from person to person.

This option is not a direct criticism of the pamphlet itself but rather a statement about the variability in the effectiveness of treatment. It suggests that even if people detect fungal infections through the pamphlet, the treatment may not always work well for everyone. While this is a valid consideration, it doesn't directly address the effectiveness of the pamphlet's approach in promoting early detection, which is the pamphlet's primary goal.

B. The pamphlet was sent to all rural villagers, even those that practice good foot hygiene.

This option criticizes the indiscriminate distribution of the pamphlet to all villagers, including those who already practice good foot hygiene. It suggests that sending the pamphlet to everyone may be inefficient and not target the population most in need. This criticism questions the pamphlet's targeting strategy but does not directly address its effectiveness in achieving its goal.

C. Fungal infections of the foot are much more common in men than in women, yet both sexes received the pamphlet.

This option criticizes the pamphlet for not tailoring its approach to address the different prevalence rates of fungal infections between men and women. While it highlights a potential issue with the pamphlet's targeting, it doesn't directly address the effectiveness of the pamphlet in promoting early detection of fungal infections.

D. People who do not use proper hygiene to care for their feet are unlikely to perform weekly checks of their feet for fungal infections.

Option D is the best criticism among the choices. It points out a fundamental flaw in the pamphlet's approach. If individuals are not practicing proper foot hygiene, they are unlikely to follow the pamphlet's instructions to perform weekly checks for fungal infections. This criticism directly questions the effectiveness of the pamphlet's strategy in achieving its goal of early detection.

E. A previous pamphlet from the public health department of Mongolia that warned of the dangers of smoking met with limited success in all parts of Mongolia.

Option E is not a valid criticism of the current pamphlet's approach. It discusses the limited success of a previous pamphlet about smoking but does not directly address the effectiveness or appropriateness of the current pamphlet's strategy for addressing fungal infections of the feet. It's not relevant to the specific problem at hand.