Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 03 Dec 2016, 03:52

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 417 [0], given: 0

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 10:43
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:36) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.
(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.
(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.
(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.
(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 155
Location: New York
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 10:49
Wow, had to stare at this one for >2min. Sutble one Paul. These CR are really awesome. C is the answer
_________________

---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1793
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 10:58
I will go with E

Contenders are C and E.

C) - Genetic suceptibility is just a part of the problem and even if it is cured may not get rid of the the sickness.
E) - The argument says that "those who follow the advice will not fall sick" meaning that these people can be convinced to follow some advice.
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 155
Location: New York
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:02
anandnk wrote:
I will go with E

Contenders are C and E.

C) - Genetic suceptibility is just a part of the problem and even if it is cured may not get rid of the the sickness.
E) - The argument says that "those who follow the advice will not fall sick" meaning that these people can be convinced to follow some advice.

NOT READING CAREFULLY will get me. I read C as All human sicknesses are a result (nicely skipped the "part") Ouch!
_________________

---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1793
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:07
hi lvb9th,

You have to understand that it is OK to get CRs wrong. No one is perfect. You are sharpening your skills and improving your thinking. I saw your reply and that made me think but I will stick to my answer. I will be happy if you are right ( I think u r right) and at the same time I would like to know your rationale for choosing C and I believe I can learn something.

After reading your reply I thought that :if none of the diseases are due to genetic abnormality then the argument has no place to stand
May be C is perfect but I dont have a great explanation for it until someone provides one.

This is a tough question and I sure took more than 2 mins.

Anand.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 290
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:22
C for me.......In the 1st line of argument it says in 20 yrs from now human genes susceptibility to every disease would have been identified, indicatiing that some part of a gene is definitely responsible for disease.....
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1793
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:24
Hi Paul,

I am curious to know if you got this wrong. What was your answer and why did you choose that?

Anand.
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 155
Location: New York
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:39
anandnk wrote:
hi lvb9th,

You have to understand that it is OK to get CRs wrong. No one is perfect. You are sharpening your skills and improving your thinking. I saw your reply and that made me think but I will stick to my answer. I will be happy if you are right ( I think u r right) and at the same time I would like to know your rationale for choosing C and I believe I can learn something.

After reading your reply I thought that :if none of the diseases are due to genetic abnormality then the argument has no place to stand
May be C is perfect but I dont have a great explanation for it until someone provides one.

This is a tough question and I sure took more than 2 mins.

Anand.

Thanks Anandnk, I guess I have a tendency to be 2 hard on myself! Let me see if I can work out all of them! I'll assume that C is in fact "in part"
_________________

---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 293
Location: US
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:40
I'll go with C.

The conclusion is that people who follow these effective strategies will never get sick. The assumption is that all human sicknesses are a result of individual genetic susceptibilities. Even if cured of their genetic susceptibility to a disease, people could still get sick from non-genetic susceptibilities.
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 652
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:52
CONCLUSION: People who follow them[=the genetic cure]
will never get sick.

The concusion talks of those people who follow the genetic cure.
If so, E does not add any information to the argument.
On the contrary, what if the sickness are not caused by
genetic disorders. In that case, even if people follow the genetic
cure, they will get sick.

Thus, my choice is C.

It is hard to play the losing games with heavy weights such as
Anand, Paul and other folks. But, every puch here will save me
one in real test.
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 155
Location: New York
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 11:59
Paul wrote:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.
(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.
(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.
(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.
(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.

Ok, here it is! We all agree that A & B are out. Now, the conclusion is that people "who follow the strategies" will never get sick! The "who follow them" pat is really just a filler in my opinion. The important part here is that they'll NEVER GET SICK! Meaning that the strategies will cure them of all illnesses. The real assumption here is that ALL illnessess/deseases are determined by genetic susceptabilities. In other words, we might all be susceptable to flue, and with a shot lets assume we can be flu-free forever. How about other illnesses???

So, once again, the assumption must be establish the relationship between deseases and genetic sus-ty. None of the answers offer that option. I went with C initially because I misread the "in part" section of the answer C. IMO, if that section is removed it will make it the best answer. The way the are now, I'll stick with C, although I don't fully agree with it!
_________________

---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 417 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2004, 12:27
Wow, awesome discussion. I did not think I would have stirred such a discussion on this problem
Well, OA is C and there is no explanation given
IMO, C is best as Anandnk previously said
anandnk wrote:
if none of the diseases are due to genetic abnormality then the argument has no place to stand

but also, because all we need to know is that at least some diseases are the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities in order for the argument to stand. E on the other hand can be refuted as follows:
conclusion: Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick
The people who follow them does not assume that people will follow them. On the other hand, E would have been an assumption if the conclusion were as follows:
conclusion: Once these effective strategies are found, nobody will never get sick
In above example, we HAVE to assume that people will follow them since they will never get sick.
I got this one right on the basis of the above explanation. However, I missed the one on "trustworthyness"
Good job everyone!
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 461
Location: In the middle of nowhere
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2004, 05:30
Nice conversation....chose C...

Vivek.
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Manager: Last year, within the sales division Source: Powerscore 1 04 Jun 2015, 03:01
It is probably within the reach of human technology to make 3 30 Jan 2013, 21:20
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the 4 21 Jan 2010, 14:16
It is probably within the reach of human technology to make 2 12 Apr 2007, 03:24
2 Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the 12 28 Dec 2006, 02:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by