It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 18:05

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

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2012
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 32 [1], given: 30

GMAT Date: 10-12-2012
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 07:17
1
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (01:32) correct 53% (01:33) wrong based on 483 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 32 [1], given: 30

Manager
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 77 [1], given: 48

Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 08:07
1
KUDOS
Look at [B] from a mathematical point of view - for example in DS questions when we are talking about a unique value of X, and the equation is quadratic, you would know that X could take 2 values so you cannot find a unique X.

Similarly here, when it qualifies people {who intentionally continue to expose themselves to UV sunlight and thus absorb larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past} - You do not know what was the number of people doing it in past and what is the number of people doing that intentional exposure today.

So when the question asks which of these if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year? [B] would hang in between.

But [D] solves the puzzle pretty clearly.
_________________

Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos

Kudos [?]: 77 [1], given: 48

Manager
Status: Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much.
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 60 [1], given: 48

Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 10:05
1
KUDOS
methevoid wrote:
Look at [B] from a mathematical point of view - for example in DS questions when we are talking about a unique value of X, and the equation is quadratic, you would know that X could take 2 values so you cannot find a unique X.

Similarly here, when it qualifies people {who intentionally continue to expose themselves to UV sunlight and thus absorb larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past} - You do not know what was the number of people doing it in past and what is the number of people doing that intentional exposure today.

So when the question asks which of these if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year? [B] would hang in between.

But [D] solves the puzzle pretty clearly.

Looks to me that option A answers the question better.
Option D talks about number of men and women, both of whom should safely qualify as adults. And the passage does make a statement saying that the number of adults going in for an intentional exposure to UV due to sun-tan has decreased.
_________________

Live Life the Way YOU Love It !!

GmatPrep1 [10/09/2012] : 650 (Q42;V38) - need to make lesser silly mistakes.
MGMAT 1 [11/09/2012] : 640 (Q44;V34) - need to improve quant pacing and overcome verbal fatigue.

Kudos [?]: 60 [1], given: 48

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 269

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 04:33
rohitgarg wrote:
Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.

Hi Rohit

You are missing a point. Only exposure does not cause cancer, large amount of doses cause cancer. Now read option B again. In the past the same people who intentionally exposed themselves were taking less doses, so no cancer to them. But now the people expose themselves for larger amount of time, so cancer.

Hope it helps !

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 269

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 269

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 04:35
rohitgarg wrote:
Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.

Hi Rohit

You are missing a point. Only exposure does not cause cancer, large amount of doses cause cancer. Now read option B again. In the past the same people who intentionally exposed themselves were taking less doses, so no cancer to them. But now the people expose themselves for longer of time, so cancer.

Hope it helps !

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 269

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7788

Kudos [?]: 18098 [7], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 04:50
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.

If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18098 [7], given: 236

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10155

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Jan 2014, 03:09
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 444

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 58

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jun 2014, 12:03
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.

If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.

Hi Karishma,
Don't you find it that option D is actually negating the statements?
If it's stated that far less adults are exposing themselves intentionally, than what does it matter if more men are exposing while the number of women is decreasing?
Either way, the total number is decreasing...
No?

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 58

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7788

Kudos [?]: 18098 [0], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jun 2014, 20:02
ronr34 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.

If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.

Hi Karishma,
Don't you find it that option D is actually negating the statements?
If it's stated that far less adults are exposing themselves intentionally, than what does it matter if more men are exposing while the number of women is decreasing?
Either way, the total number is decreasing...
No?

You are correct but that is the point - it is an EXCEPT question:
"... could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer despite the decrease in intentional exposure EXCEPT"
So (D) does not explain the stability in the incidence. It doesn't matter whether number of men is increasing or number of women is decreasing. The point is that total number is decreasing. So it doesn't explain the stability in the incidence of skin cancer.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18098 [0], given: 236

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jan 2015, 09:56
Hello All,

Can someone please explain why choice E is incorrect in this question

(E) In most victims, skin cancer is linked to exposures to UV sunlight that occurred up to 30 years before the onset of disease.

I can't get how this statement is linked with argument.

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 30

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7788

Kudos [?]: 18098 [0], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jan 2015, 23:05
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
vikasbansal227 wrote:
Hello All,

Can someone please explain why choice E is incorrect in this question

(E) In most victims, skin cancer is linked to exposures to UV sunlight that occurred up to 30 years before the onset of disease.

I can't get how this statement is linked with argument.

Thanks

I don't see an option (E) in this question.

But even if it were there, it would explain the stability in the number of skin cancer cases.
The argument tells us that there was a sun tan craze 20 yrs ago. So people exposed their skin to UV rays at that time. Since skin cancer is linked to exposures that occurred up to 30 yrs ago, the people getting skin cancer nowadays could be those who exposed their skin to UV rays 20 yrs ago. That would explain why people are still getting the disease though very few are intentionally exposing their skin to UV rays nowadays.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18098 [0], given: 236

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jan 2015, 23:37
Thank you for nice explanation

I was wary excluding this choice while attempting this problem. Since there is insufficient evidence in the argument to suggest that the UV exposure was high enough 30 years back.

Although it is clearly mentioned that suntan craze was there 20 years back, but can we do assumption based extrapolation of this trend unto 30 years? Maybe trend that existed 20 years ago may only started few years back, isn't it.

Thank you.
Vikas

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 30

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jan 2015, 23:39
Source of this problem is KAPLAN 800 book.

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 30

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 370

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 349

Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Mar 2016, 13:29
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 349

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical   [#permalink] 27 Mar 2016, 13:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.