|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 24
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 19
|
Question Stats:
78% (02:21) correct
21% (00:28) wrong based on 0 sessions
OG-11, Question#20, Page#525.
The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease has dropped significantly in a rural
county this year, as compared to last year. Health officials attribute this decrease entirely to improved sanitary
conditions at water-treatment plants, which made for cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of
the disease.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the health officials’ explanation for the lower
incidence of the disease?
A. Many new water-treatment plants have been built in the last five years in the rural county.
B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as
having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.
C. Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as
having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.
D. Because of medical advances this year, far fewer people who contract the intestinal disease will develop
severe cases of the disease.
E. The water in the rural county was brought up to the sanitary standards of the water in neighboring counties
ten years ago.
As per OG, the correct ans choice is (C). But I think ans choice (B) weighs above (C).
OG rules out choice (B) simply because it says bottled water has been consumed in approximately same quantity by 2 classes of people; those who were diagnosed and those who were not.
Bottled water(pure water) can be considered as the best improvement of sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants. So this means the perfect improvement of sanitary conditions exposed to the two classes of people in roughly equal amount still drops the number of diagnosed people significantly. This clearly conveys that sanitary condition improvement is NOT a factor in this drop, which definitely contradicts the conclusion.
Choice (C) offers an alternate explaination (new technique proving old diagnoses wrong) for the reduction in diagnoses.
So why not choice (B), which directly contradicts the conclusion, is a better choice than choice (C), which gives an alternate explaination?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 220
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 8
|
Option B - talks about bottled water not the the improved sanity conditions at water treatment plant In GMAT we can assume anything (even a tiny thing). only facts from premise(s) can be taken and bottled water is not mentioned in any premise. Hence, this is irrelevant. Option C - says even after improving sanity condition at water treatment plant, intestenial disease remians in one or another form. This directly attacks the conclusion. Hence this is the correct answer Whether its a weaken or strengthen question, do not assume anything outside what is mentioned in the premise. Hope this helps
_________________
Success is my Destiny
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1570
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
121
[0], given: 6
|
C it is.
Health official says that the number of people diagnosed of certain intestinal disease has dropped sigficantly this year. The official concludes that the drop in disease is because of better sanitation at water treatment plants.
We have to weaken the arguument.......meaning we have to find somthing which will prove that the drop in disease is not because of better sanitation but because of something else....option (C) does that.
C says....Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as
having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers....so the drop in disease is because of new diagnostic technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
58
[0], given: 51
|
c hurts the conclusion maximum. therefore C , had C not been there i would have considered B
_________________
What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 48
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 10
|
seekmba wrote: C it is.
Health official says that the number of people diagnosed of certain intestinal disease has dropped sigficantly this year. The official concludes that the drop in disease is because of better sanitation at water treatment plants.
We have to weaken the arguument.......meaning we have to find somthing which will prove that the drop in disease is not because of better sanitation but because of something else....option (C) does that.
C says....Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as
having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers....so the drop in disease is because of new diagnostic technique. I didn't choose C because I think intestinal ulcer is an intestinal disease, is it not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 456
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 39
|
WHY E is wrong? E said that the condition is already good and the low rate is not caused by improvement. E is also wakening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Pill Representative
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 172
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 2
|
Hi Thang, I think E is wrong because the argument only deals with the one country. So we need to look at the reasons for a change in that one country. Whether that one country is comparatively advanced/behind compared to other countries will not affect the weakness of the argument which is about one country only. Does that help? Cheers, James
_________________
Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0
      
... and more
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 456
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 39
|
C requires an assumption which is that the total of person condidered deaseased and diagnosed as deaseased is the same.
e gmat make a posting , saying that this situation in which weakener requires an assumption happens in og. e gmat experts also cite the relevant question in og. the relevant posting of e gmat is recent.
is my thinking correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
