Recently, the research and development departments at major pharmaceutical companies have been experimenting with new injections that provide the boost in iron that anemic children need to reverse their condition. These companies have expressed confidence that children who are suffering from anemia will be cured relatively simply through the use of such biochemical supplements.

In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect, the pharmaceutical companies assume that

major pharmaceutical companies have the primary responsibility to cure childhood anemia
a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children
a diet rich in iron cannot improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become unnecessary
children afflicted with anemia will find out about and submit to injections that can reverse their conditions
the use of biochemical supplements is the safest way to cure anemia in children

Made a mistake on this one. Any clues? Will refrain from giving the OA rightaway. Will do in 24 hours.

Please KUDOS me if you like the question.

Major pharmaceutical companies states that new injection that provides iron boost would help anemic children to reverse their condition. Then these companies conclude that anemic children can be simply cured by using such biochemical supplements. The assumption here is that children intake enough or sufficient iron only by injection biochemical supplement, not by other methods such as eating a diet rich in iron or taking pills that supplement iron.
IMO, C is the answer.

the OA is D. I was stuck between B and D. Went for B but realized D also makes sense.

B - talks about the cause. I made the mistake of using my knowledge of anemia and concluded that the only reason for anemia is iron deficiency. That might or might not be the case but what the company is claiming is that anemia can be cured with iron injection. So B isn't necessarily an assumption necessary.
C - the key here is the claim that it can be "relatively simply" cured. While diet might be a way but we do not know if it is simple or not. May be it takes many years to cure. even if diet does cure it is not necessary to assume that everyone has access to diet or the injection will not cure. we should focus on the injections. moving on to diet is a scope shift.
D - This works well if you negate it. If children refuse to take or are unaware of such a thing ..it then it just isnt going to work. So D has to be an assumption that the pharma company has to work with.

Please KUDOS me if you like the post.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

I am not sure what your question is. Is it that they say that anemia will be cured by the use of biochemical supplements, not the injection?
If yes, then they mention "In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect..." which definitely implies the injection that is being developed is a biochemical remedy.
If your question is something else, please clarify.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

I have serious issues with the wording here, since it's open to two completely legitimate interpretations; the phrase "children who are suffering from anemia will be cured" could mean two different things. It could mean "*all* children with anemia will be cured" (this is the interpretation that they intend), or it could mean "this supplement is a successful cure for anemia". I find the second interpretation far more reasonable than the first. To give a parallel example, if a veterinarian says "this injection will cure rabies in dogs", he or she surely doesn't mean "because of this injection, rabies will, in the future, be completely eradicated in dogs". Instead he or she means "if a dog takes this injection, the dog's rabies will be cured".

Now, if you take "children who are suffering from anemia will be cured" to mean "this supplement is an effective cure for those who take it", then D is not a relevant assumption at all; a supplement can be an effective cure for a disease even if no one actually uses it. Only B would be a good answer in that case. I disagree with the posts above which dismiss B as an assumption; it is an assumption in the argument. The stem tells us that iron boosts are *necessary* to reverse anemia. The stem does not tell us that iron boosts are *sufficient* to reverse anemia. The iron supplements will only reverse anemia if nothing in addition to iron is needed to reverse anemia. To give a different example, if I say "I need a tent to go camping. I have a tent, so I can go camping", then I'm assuming that a tent is *all* I need to go camping - that is, I'm assuming that the tent alone is sufficient for camping, and that I don't need, say, food as well. Since B suggests that iron supplements are the only thing required to reverse anemia, it does provide a missing assumption in the argument.

Now, if instead you interpret "children who are suffering from anemia will be cured" to mean that anemia will be eliminated because of the supplement, then D is certainly a good answer, but I think that's a bizarre way to interpret the question stem here.

Given how I interpret the question, I think B is a better answer than D here, though someone who interprets the question differently can certainly justify answer D. I find the whole question problematic, so I wouldn't suggest devoting much time to it.
_________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto

I definitely agree with you Ian.
My concern is that option B says:
"a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children"

They call it the major factor, something that is necessary, not the only factor. (Again a matter of interpretation, I guess)

Therefore, I feel the need to discount it and look for an alternative. This leads me to interpret it the way they meant it.

As I said in my first post of this topic - I would have preferred an assumption such as 'Iron is the only thing you need to be cured'

But of course, no point spending too much time on it.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

I thought that the B is already mentioned in the stimulous as premise and so couldn't be an answer. Still went for it.

I was not convinced with the placement of words in option -D

Major factor for anemia --> Iron Deficiency
Pharamaceutical companies are coming up with an injection which boosts iron content in the patient, thus curing anemia/closing the iron deficiency gap.

Option A - Primary responsibility of companies has nothing to do with arguement mentioned
Option B - Already mentioned in the Premise
Option C - There might be other ways of filling the gap of iron content other than injections but it is irrelevant in this context.
Option E - Safety of the injections has no relevance to the arguement

Option D - Companies can see more of these injections only if the children are ready to go for it. Once the children with such ailments know about these injections, they will do whatever they can to reverse their condition. This is the most logical assumption of the Pharmaceutical companies.

I hope this helps...