Public health expert: Until recently people believed that : Critical Reasoning (CR)

mbaiseasy

Senior Manager

Joined: 13 Aug 2012

Posts: 336

Own Kudos [?]: 1821 [0]

Given Kudos: 11

Concentration: Marketing, Finance

Schools: Full Time MBA (A$)

GPA: 3.23

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

06 Oct 2012, 00:00

Ppl belief: Biochem could achve vctry over micro until rec.
BUT, killing 1 -> other micro evolves
THEREFORE, MOST rational public health strat is spread INFO

(A) is an evidence Not the Point

(B) is not supported by argument; in fact, it says it can kill one micro (BUT cause others to evolve)

(C) is exactly the point (change public health policy/strategy)

(D) is extreme / not really supported by argument

(E) is not the point

gamelord

Intern

Joined: 31 Oct 2011

Posts: 27

Own Kudos [?]: 68 [0]

Given Kudos: 7

Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship

GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35

GPA: 3.4

WE:Accounting (Commercial Banking)

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

11 Oct 2012, 21:03

I think A only represents information of this part "However, current medical research shows that
those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will
only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines"
The primary purpose of this passage is to urge a change in public health strategy

dbaremberg

Intern

Joined: 23 May 2014

Posts: 8

Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]

Given Kudos: 11

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

20 Jul 2014, 20:22

I disagree - I think that this question is weak, because the passage does not give information telling us what the current health care policy is; merely that a certain tactic is more rational.

gauravkaushik8591

Manager

Joined: 24 Oct 2013

Posts: 126

Own Kudos [?]: 141 [0]

Given Kudos: 83

Location: Canada

Schools: LBS '18

GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38

WE:Design (Transportation)

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

04 Aug 2014, 13:44

All the questions that state 'which of the following can be concluded?' do allow paraphrase of the stimulus (where the question stimulus acts as the evidence for deriving the conclusion). Why then can we not use paraphrase of evidence here?

geezer0305

Intern

Joined: 01 Oct 2012

Posts: 12

Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]

Given Kudos: 9

Location: United States

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing

WE:Research (Energy and Utilities)

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

10 Aug 2014, 11:03

gauravkaushik8591 wrote:

All the questions that state 'which of the following can be concluded?' do allow paraphrase of the stimulus (where the question stimulus acts as the evidence for deriving the conclusion). Why then can we not use paraphrase of evidence here?

This question asks you to predict the conclusion that the health expert will arrive at (not what you, the reader, can conclude). The health expert's conclusion will not be a paraphrase of the evidence (s)he cites.

Had the question asked- what can be inferred, what must be true or even what can be concluded...... I agree, paraphrased evidence would have been correct.

G

Temurkhon

Senior Manager

Joined: 23 Jan 2013

Posts: 429

Own Kudos [?]: 263 [0]

Given Kudos: 43

Schools: Cambridge'16

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

11 Aug 2014, 04:00

It is not inference/must be true question, it is main point question that have conclusion. The correct answer should repeat conclusion not premise, so only option is C

nitin6305

Manager

Joined: 09 Nov 2012

Status:How easy it is?

Posts: 74

Own Kudos [?]: 408 [0]

Given Kudos: 174

Location: India

Concentration: Operations, General Management

Schools: NUS '16 ISB '15 GMBA '16 XLRI

GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37

GPA: 3.5

WE:Operations (Other)

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

16 Sep 2014, 14:17

Can someone please advise why Option B is incorrect? The question stem wants us to rephrase the conclusion. The conclusion says that people should be careful so as to not contract any disease by micro-organisms, doesn't it mean that he is saying because there is no treatment available for diseases caused by micro-organisms (this is indicated from the premise as well).

p2bhokie

Intern

Joined: 23 Jan 2012

Posts: 40

Own Kudos [?]: 65 [0]

Given Kudos: 40

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

16 Sep 2014, 14:34

Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

p2bhokie

Intern

Joined: 23 Jan 2012

Posts: 40

Own Kudos [?]: 65 [0]

Given Kudos: 40

Send PM

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

16 Sep 2014, 17:11

pqhai wrote:

p2bhokie wrote:

Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

Hello.

This is a conclusion question, so it's important to understand the "purpose" of the author. Why does he explain/mention/talk about something? What he wants to suggest? What he implies? That helps to solve "conclusion" question.

Let analyze the question.

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines. The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.

The blue part is the suggestion. That's the KEY. Let ask yourself why the expert suggests something? --> He wants to improve anything?

Analyze each answer choices.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
Wrong. It just repeats the fact and is NOT a conclusion of the public health expert.

(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
Wrong. Out of scope. We can’t conclude that. The public health expert just says that the strategy would place more emphasis than at present on informing people about the transmission of diseases. That’s it. No comparison of how effective between a present method and that of other time period.

(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
Correct. This is exactly what the expert wants to say. Let ask yourself why the public health expert suggested a new strategy? The reason is, off course, the current public health policy is NOT good enough to prevent the diseases.

(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
Wrong. Can’t infer that. A fully informed about the disease may be a victim to the diseases. “Informed” does not mean “100% prevented”.

(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.
Wrong. We don’t know whether some previous approached ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at rapid rate or not. We have no clue about that.

Hope it helps.

Thanks pqhai...the answer started to make a lot more sense...thanks again...

Posted from my mobile device

mbasile

Intern

Joined: 30 Jul 2011

Posts: 10

Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]

Given Kudos: 22

Location: United States

Concentration: Finance, Economics

GMAT Date: 05-31-2024

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

13 Oct 2014, 11:53

Sorry for jumping in late here, but I think I can add some value. ALL (except for inferences questions) CR questions on the GMAT can be broken down into 3 buckets:

1. Descriptive Arguments
2. Ascriptive Arguments
3. Prescriptive Arguments

This is a prescriptive argument. A prescriptive argument is one that outlines a problem and prescribes a solution. The author will commonly advocate some new piece of technology, or some new method of doing a thing. They'll conclude that the new method is the best, safest, cheapest, and/or handsomest. Once you understand this, it becomes clear that the conclusion is C: "there is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy." -- REPHRASED: "there is good reason to accept my prescription."

ssriva2

Manager

Joined: 22 Aug 2014

Posts: 100

Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]

Given Kudos: 49

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

04 May 2015, 05:43

[quote="Ankit04041987"]Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will
only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines. The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.

I have a doubt..
change "to health policy" .How can informing people lead to change in health policy?A
I think B is more appropriate than C?

wainsdaylion

Intern

Joined: 27 Jul 2016

Posts: 7

Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]

Given Kudos: 4

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

14 Sep 2016, 07:06

ssriva2 wrote:

Ankit04041987 wrote:

I have a doubt..
change "to health policy" .How can informing people lead to change in health policy?

You're putting the horse behind the cart here. The "public health expert" is advocating a "public health strategy" of "informing people". The expert is not saying we should inform people to change the policy.

B

chessgiants

Intern

Joined: 13 Apr 2017

Posts: 34

Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]

Given Kudos: 2

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

09 May 2017, 09:42

A is incorrect because of 2 reasons. First, the medicine pill only creates anti-drug bacteria if it is abused.
Secondly, to get conclusion, ones should look at the premises and reasoning.

B

KM2018AA

Manager

Joined: 11 Sep 2016

Posts: 65

Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]

Given Kudos: 23

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Leadership

Schools: McDonough '20 (M$)

GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40 Verified score

GPA: 3

WE:Sales (Manufacturing)

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

09 May 2017, 18:29

p2bhokie wrote:

pqhai wrote:

p2bhokie wrote:

Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

Hello.

This is a conclusion question, so it's important to understand the "purpose" of the author. Why does he explain/mention/talk about something? What he wants to suggest? What he implies? That helps to solve "conclusion" question.

Let analyze the question.

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines. The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.

The blue part is the suggestion. That's the KEY. Let ask yourself why the expert suggests something? --> He wants to improve anything?

Analyze each answer choices.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
Wrong. It just repeats the fact and is NOT a conclusion of the public health expert.

(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
Wrong. Out of scope. We can’t conclude that. The public health expert just says that the strategy would place more emphasis than at present on informing people about the transmission of diseases. That’s it. No comparison of how effective between a present method and that of other time period.

(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
Correct. This is exactly what the expert wants to say. Let ask yourself why the public health expert suggested a new strategy? The reason is, off course, the current public health policy is NOT good enough to prevent the diseases.

(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
Wrong. Can’t infer that. A fully informed about the disease may be a victim to the diseases. “Informed” does not mean “100% prevented”.

(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.
Wrong. We don’t know whether some previous approached ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at rapid rate or not. We have no clue about that.

Hope it helps.

Thanks pqhai...the answer started to make a lot more sense...thanks again...

Posted from my mobile device

Hi. pqhai

While i agree with the best answer choice as C, I have some reservations on your explanation of why choice B is incorrect, a reservation I request you to help me get rid of

(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
Wrong. Out of scope. We can’t conclude that. The public health expert just says that the strategy would place more emphasis than at present on informing people about the transmission of diseases. That’s it. No comparison of how effective between a present method and that of other time period.

I ask why is this out of scope. The author's statement

However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines

specifically points to the ineffectiveness of the currently available medicines in that these cannot completely cure the diseases (caused by microorganisms) because attempting to kill one type subsequently leads to evolution of a new resistant variety , leaving the disease uncured. So can we not conclude that the present method to cure diseases (treating patients with currently available medicines to fight micro organisms that caused this disease) is proving to be ineffective ? hence the patient cannot be cured effectively through present methods? . Does my point make sense or am I over analysing it?"

B

Bob476

Intern

Joined: 28 May 2018

Posts: 1

Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]

Given Kudos: 2

Send PM

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

05 Jun 2018, 13:36

Hi KM2018AA,

Good questions to be asking!

Re:
"However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines

specifically points to the ineffectiveness of the currently available medicines in that these cannot completely cure the diseases (caused by microorganisms) because attempting to kill one type subsequently leads to evolution of a new resistant variety , leaving the disease uncured. So can we not conclude that the present method to cure diseases (treating patients with currently available medicines to fight micro organisms that caused this disease) is proving to be ineffective ? hence the patient cannot be cured effectively through present methods? . Does my point make sense or am I over analysing it?"

Answer B is: A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.

Your point does make some sense but if you take the analysis further and continue debating answer B you might see that there are potential gaps in your argument.

In my thinking answer B can not be infered as we are not given any substantive information to conclude that a patient (not all or most, just a single patient) could not be cured by present methods. What might the cure rate for treatments currently be?

The author's conclusions is that the emphasis should be changed but it does not go as far as to say that medicines be removed from treating patients.

Also, do you have to kill all the microorganisms or could you just reduce the level of micro organisms, drug resistant or not, to treat someone?

Looking at the question being asked originally...
Answer B IMO does not answer what the question is looking for, it does not reflect the conclusion the author states in their last sentence

"The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases."

Hope that makes some sense

B

Aekkus

Intern

Joined: 16 Jan 2023

Posts: 2

Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]

Given Kudos: 5

Send PM

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

13 Jan 2024, 06:16

Why is it C and not E, kindly explain.

gmatclubot

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

13 Jan 2024, 06:16

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that