GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 06:50

### 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

# A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 95
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 08:07
1
3
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (02:08) correct 64% (02:05) wrong based on 235 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduates. In the U.S., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to ultraviolet (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 20 years 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) Because of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere, more people are now exposed accidentally to excessive UV sunlight.

(B) People who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of the harmful radiation than the average sun-tanner 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.

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

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.

_________________
Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9705
Location: Pune, India
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 04:50
8
1
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

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7967
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2018, 07:51
1
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduates. In the U.S., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to ultraviolet (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 20 years 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) Because of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere, more people are now exposed accidentally to excessive UV sunlight.
So more people are getting exposed accidentally...does explain

(B) People who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of the harmful radiation than the average sun-tanner did in the past.
Now the exposure has increased, so incidence of cancer has remained relatively constant....... A close second to choice D

(C) Levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year.
clearly explains

(D) While fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight, the number of men doing so has increased significantly.
women may have stopped and more men may have increased but overall we know the exposure by adults has decreased. Doesn't matter what constitutes the adults who are exposing themselves but the number has decreased... Doesn't explain

(E) In most victims, skin cancer is linked to exposures to UV sunlight that occurred up to 30 years before the onset of the disease.
again explains. The present cases are related to time when exposure was more

D
_________________
##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 327
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#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?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9705
Location: Pune, India
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#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

Manager
Status: In last prep stage
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 156
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.2
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2018, 04:19
1
Given: 1.Number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year
2.Far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20 years ago.

Type of question: EXCEPT

Reasoning:Correct me if i am wrong,
(A) Because of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere, more people are now exposed accidentally to excessive UV sunlight- explains the cause of cancer.Even though few adults are intentionally exposing,but due to reason specified they are exposed accidentaly.So it explains.Eliminate.

(B) People who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of the harmful radiation than the average sun-tanner did in the past-Correct

(C) Levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year.-Other source of radiation ,here alternative cause explained ,so eliminate

(D) While fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight, the number of men doing so has increased significantly- Irreleveant as not about male/female but about adults

(E) In most victims, skin cancer is linked to exposures to UV sunlight that occurred up to 30 years before the onset of the disease.-Since cancer caused due to time older than 30 years,it explains the cause.
[/quote]
_________________
Thanks,
Ankit
Target Score:730+

If the post was useful,please send the kudos
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1007
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2018, 07:01
1
Bunuel wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduates. In the U.S., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to ultraviolet (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 20 years 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) Because of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere, more people are now exposed accidentally to excessive UV sunlight.

(B) People who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of the harmful radiation than the average sun-tanner 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.

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

Imo D
This is an except question and we have to be careful that we keep that in mind.

A this actually helps to explain the relative stability of skin cancer among folks.

B This helps that people mistakenly are receiving more doses of UV radiating leading to skin cancer. Thus this choice also helps to explain the stability.

C Again if this the case then more people will be exposed to more UV radiation and they might not know the source.

D Correct. While this choice breaks up the population in gender, still this does not explain stability in the skin cancer. More men are exposing themselves than women this can lead to various cases and we do not know the number of female or female to ascertain the overall impact of such trend. This is our answer.

E This choice also explains the stability of the cancer.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 309
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2018, 09:13

I am confused with option C as to why it can't be the answer. In the argument we are specifically given that "the number of cases of skin cancer linked to ultraviolet (UV) radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year". If we are strictly talking about UV radiation in the sunlight, sources other than the UV radiation are completely irrelevant to the argument, aren't they? Could you please comment on this?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9705
Location: Pune, India
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2019, 06:41
csaluja wrote:

I am confused with option C as to why it can't be the answer. In the argument we are specifically given that "the number of cases of skin cancer linked to ultraviolet (UV) radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year". If we are strictly talking about UV radiation in the sunlight, sources other than the UV radiation are completely irrelevant to the argument, aren't they? Could you please comment on this?

Hey csaluja,

I am totally with you on that one. The argument does say "UV radiation in sunlight". But here is the thing - the only source of UV radiation has been sunlight. But now other sources are increasing. Now since we are talking about a career in dermatology, the number of cases of skin cancer due to UV radiation from any source is the same.
Strictly speaking, you are right. But since option (D) is worse and we get what the argument and option (C) intended to say, we let it slide here. In an official question, they would talk about "skin cancer due to UV radiation" and not "skin cancer due to UV radiation in sunlight".
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical school graduat   [#permalink] 01 Jan 2019, 06:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by