|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 99
Location: Mexico
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: 610 Q42 V34
GPA: 3.85
WE: Sales (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new [#permalink]
 21 Jul 2012, 21:53
onedayill wrote: Can some one please explain me why not D.
I Agree its bit B & D, I'm still more inclined to D. In plain words, we do not care about non autistic kids nor what happens to them latter on. The argument only cares about autistic kids. In more polite english, D is out of scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
313
[0], given: 52
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new [#permalink]
18 Aug 2012, 13:03
Why not E? This option says that was no RELIABLE EVIDENCE that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. I suppose correct diagnosis and reliable evidence are both quite analogous to each other. If there were a reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young, then how could the autistic children can benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available. Please let me know if I am missing something.
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 763
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 19
Kudos [?]:
258
[0], given: 45
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new [#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 00:10
siddharthasingh wrote: Why not E?
This option says that was no RELIABLE EVIDENCE that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. I suppose correct diagnosis and reliable evidence are both quite analogous to each other. If there were a reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young, then how could the autistic children can benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available.
Please let me know if I am missing something. The negation technique would be useful in answering your question. Statement E) There was no reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. Negating we would get : There was some reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. We can still argue that the new technique would provide better evidence. The negation hence does not actively kill the conclusion. Hence E cannot be the answer.
_________________
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
313
[0], given: 52
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new [#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 00:48
MacFauz wrote: siddharthasingh wrote: Why not E?
This option says that was no RELIABLE EVIDENCE that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. I suppose correct diagnosis and reliable evidence are both quite analogous to each other. If there were a reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young, then how could the autistic children can benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available.
Please let me know if I am missing something. The negation technique would be useful in answering your question. Statement E) There was no reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. Negating we would get : There was some reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. We can still argue that the new technique would provide better evidence. The negation hence does not actively kill the conclusion. Hence E cannot be the answer. Even if ,on negating, we get: There was some reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test, then also reliable evidence means some way through which it could have been ensured that whether a particular child was autistic or not. And if this was so, then how could the conclusion hold true.
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 763
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 19
Kudos [?]:
258
[0], given: 45
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new [#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 01:02
siddharthasingh wrote: MacFauz wrote: siddharthasingh wrote: Why not E?
This option says that was no RELIABLE EVIDENCE that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. I suppose correct diagnosis and reliable evidence are both quite analogous to each other. If there were a reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young, then how could the autistic children can benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available.
Please let me know if I am missing something. The negation technique would be useful in answering your question. Statement E) There was no reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. Negating we would get : There was some reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test. We can still argue that the new technique would provide better evidence. The negation hence does not actively kill the conclusion. Hence E cannot be the answer. Even if ,on negating, we get: There was some reliable evidence that autism could affect children so young until the advent of the new test, then also reliable evidence means some way through which it could have been ensured that whether a particular child was autistic or not. And if this was so, then how could the conclusion hold true. The conclusion is : Autistic children can therefore now benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available. So I can still argue that this new technique would help in diagnosis earlier than when that reliable evidence could be obtained. The negation should completely destroy the conclusion without any room for counter argument. On negating B we get : A diagnostic test that sometimes falsely gives a positive diagnosis may not provide a reasonable basis for treatment decisions. Hence this negation kills the conclusion by stating that the test is not a reliable one. And on a general note, it is better to stay close to the argument. "reliable evidence" unnecessarily widens the scope from the focus of the argument which is "the diagnostic test"
_________________
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
313
[0], given: 52
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new [#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 01:26
But if there was a reliable evidence, of any type, then the children would have been benefitted earlier itself. I agree that its rather better to stay close to the wordings of the stimulus rather than broaden the scope of it, but going with what the argument intends to say( .......a new test that for the first time CORRECTLY diagnoses autism....), but if there existed some reliable evidence , then autistic children could have benefitted much earlier.
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised a new
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 01:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
