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

 It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 23:45

### 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
Your Progress

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 rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc

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

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Posts: 5
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2014, 05:08
26
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (01:51) correct 46% (01:52) wrong based on 800 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

Please share your reviews about this OA!
##### Most Helpful Expert Reply
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9706
Location: Pune, India
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2018, 18:54
6
lakshey1993 wrote:
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

Please share your reviews about this OA!

Premises:
Malicitis is being diagnosed with increasing frequency.
The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago.

Conclusion:
The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
There are already more than enough funds allocated so no point allocating more till the time the ones currently unused are used. It weakens the conclusion.

B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
Say in a population of 100,000 people, 10 people are suffering from the disease. Say 4 are at a very early stage, 2 at early stage and full blown stage. Till now, tests were available which could detect the disease at full blown stage only so only 4 cases were known. Now a new test can detect early stages too so all 10 cases are known. The number of known cases suddenly increase though the occurrence of disease is the same. So extra funds call may not be valid if sufficient funds are already allocated.

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
If the population doubles, the number of cases may double too. Say in a population of 200,000, 20 people would be suffering from the disease. Note that it is still as rare as before - 1 in 10,000 gets it. Hence, the call for extra funds may not be in order (only from the point of our argument since our argument says that it is not as rare as before. The point of morality is not discussed)

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
Certainly has no impact on our argument.

E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years
The conclusion says that the Govt needs to allocate more funds. But if a private foundation has already committed sufficient funds, the Govt may not need to add more.

Answer (D)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
##### Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2014
Posts: 83
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2014, 22:13
4
1
This is a nice question!!

A. Weakens. States that allocating more funds won’t help as the current funds itself is not being utilized well.

B. Weakens the contention that allocation of more funds will help treat and prevent malicitis. It says that a new test has been employed this year to detect malicitis at an earlier stage in the development of disease. A logical outcome of this implementation would only be an INCREASE in number of positive cases DETECTED (NOT CREATED). This does not necessarily mean that number of people LIKELY to suffer from malicitis has simultaneously increased. Quite possible that the potential number of future cases has actually dropped and with the rise in number of cases actually detected, we have finally reached a point where we are sure of eradicating the disease completely. Let’s take numbers:

4 years ago:

Total number of people in the town likely to be affected and actually affected: 1000

Total number of cases actually detected and undergoing treatment: 200

Probability of malicitis being actually reported: 20%

This year:

Total number of people in the town likely to be affected and actually affected: 500

Total number of cases actually detected and undergoing treatment after the new method was introduced: 450…Just 50 cases not diagnosed (perhaps because this year is over by the time the remaining 50 could have been brought under the scanner)

(In retrospect)Total number of cases that could have been actually detected without the new method: 20% probability i.e. 100 only

This means that the introduction of the method has actually increased the probability of detecting malicitis early and is a welcome measure towards treating and preventing malicitis. Hence, the addition of more funds may not really help much as number of new cases is already on decline…

C. Weakens. This states that the number of new cases since the last five years is zero. That is, the cases reported this year are recurrent cases, ones which were first detected within a time-frame of not more than five years ago. Hence, there is no cause for allocation of more funds as far as at least ‘prevention of malicitis’ is concerned since the data obtained so far suggests that there are anyways NO NEW CASES REPORTED THIS YEAR (probably malicitis is already eradicated, except for those who are already infected).

E. Weakens. If a private foundation has already pledged an amount for research for the next five years, allocation of surplus funds would not help much unless it be shown that treatment/prevention and research potential worth more than this pledged amount for the next five years actually exists.

D. DOES NOT WEAKEN! This option definitely does not weaken the argument. However, it does not necessarily strengthen it too. At best, it leaves the argument unaffected. Unless it be proved that the funds reviewed four years ago are insufficient to match the current levels of treatment and prevention of malicitis, we really can’t say that D strengthens the argument. As long as it does not weaken the argument, it is the correct answer!
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2014
Posts: 28
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2014, 06:51
2
lakshey1993 wrote:
Please share your reviews about this OA!
Looks legit to me!

The argument concludes that we need to spend more on malicitis prevention. The only evidence provided is that the number of diagnosed cases of malicitis has doubled in recent years. This is a deeply flawed argument--no surprise, as "each weakens EXCEPT" questions tend to be the most fragile arguments on the GMAT.

Fortunately, the flaws largely fall into a few classic patterns. First: overlooked alternatives. Is increased spending really the only solution? Second: scope shift. We have an increase in diagnosis; the argument assumes that the only possible cause is an increase in the actual occurrence of the disease, as opposed to an increase in reporting. Finally: number versus percent. An increase in the number of cases is insufficient data without corresponding population data. We care about per person frequency of the disease, not just the number of cases.

A and E directly attack the first assumption by suggesting alternatives to government funding. B attacks the second, suggesting that increase in reporting is due to increased detection, not increased prevalence. And C attacks the third, indicating that the increase in occurrence of the illness is primarily due to an increase in the size of the population.

That leaves D, which really isn't relevant at all. Who cares what experts decided four years ago? Lots could have happened between now and then, invalidating the experts judgement--funds might well still be necessary. D is the only answer that is not a weakener, and so it is correct.

Hope this helps!
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2014
Posts: 3
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2014, 08:27
1
a13ssandra wrote:
Can someone please explain why D is the correct answer. I thought A was correct

Hi, here is my way....try to find an option which is LEAST weaken or IMPERTINENT....
A----funds are currently under-utilized........weaken the conclusion that government should now allocate more funds may not reach the target.
D----a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago.......its only a piece of statement about what was done with the funding by the experts before...neither weaken or strengthen the inference and the conclusion....

Hope it will work with u
Intern
Joined: 12 Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 720 Q47 V41
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V41
GMAT 3: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.5
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2014, 16:01
1
My pick is D.

Premise 1: More people are being diagnosed with malicitis.
Premise 2: The number of people diagnosed with the disease is more than double the number reported four years ago.
Conclusion: The government needs to spend more money for treatment and prevention of this disease.

We are asked to pick one that does not weaken the argument. This means the correct answer either strengthens (unlikely because this is too easy) the argument or just has no effect on the argument (more likely). GMAT question writers tend to disguise the correct answer by making it look like it has an effect on the conclusion, so careful reading is needed to avoid such tricks.

A. Funds already available for research in malicitis are currently underutilised. Weakens. If the funds set aside to combat malicitis is underutilised then there is no need to increase the amount of funding.

B. A new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease. Weakens. This one is a little trickier. Just reading it once it seems as if the government should increase funding because the new test shows great promise. But wait - it says "employed for the first time this year" - so technically it's already been budgeted for. Combine that with the fact that the test will detect the disease sooner = cheaper to treat = means that no additional funding will be needed.

C. The number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years. Weakens. In the premise it states that the number of cases doubled compared to four years ago. However choice C states that the increase in the # of cases is in line with the overall population.

D. A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago. Correct - No Effect The correct answer is the one that either strengthens the argument or has no effect. Let's look at this statement - experts reviewed funding four years ago. What's the conclusion from this statement? Nothing. We don't know whether the committee felt funding is adequate or inadequate. All we know is that they reviewed funding four years ago. Written this way, choice D has no effect on the argument and is the correct answer. Had it been written "A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago and found it inadequate" then it would weaken the argument.

E. A private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years. Weakens. Easiest choice to cross off. Should be pretty obvious since it states that there is an alternative source of funding.
Intern
Joined: 12 Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 720 Q47 V41
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V41
GMAT 3: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.5
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2014, 20:48
hariready wrote:
Not convinced with the OA. Help.

If the funding was reviewed four years ago, when the number of people diagnosed was less than half the number of people who are diagnosed now, does it strengthen the conclusion that the funding needs to be reviewed again?

Thanks.

Good question. I had the same issue when I first read the question stem. I think what makes GMAT CR questions difficult is that in real life we are used to making inferences from things we hear and read because we are used to getting incomplete information. However, on the GMAT everything you read must be taken at face value. It's either it weakens the argument on its own or it doesn't.

With that in mind, let's look at Choice D.

A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago.

What that says, literally, is that a bunch of people looked at the funding situation four years ago. That's it. We don't know the outcome of the meeting, whether if committee felt that government needed to spend more money on treating the disease four years ago or if it felt that there was enough funding to deal with the disease even if the no. of cases were to increase by 10x. Since we don't know the outcome of the meeting, Choice D on its own neither weakens nor strengthens the argument.
Director
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 710
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2014, 02:27
1
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion EXCEPT

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized (Weakener)
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease (Weakener)
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years (Neutral neither Weakener nor Strengthener )

$$\frac{2}{10} ---> \frac{5}{25}$$ cases more than doubled but ratio is still same... so I do not see how it weakens the argument.. I consider it neutral.

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago (Strengthener )
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years(Weakener)
_________________
Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Posts: 178
GPA: 3.31
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2017, 22:21
1
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

Task is what 'strengthens' the argument.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
Then if Govt allocate more funds also, it won't be of any help. Weaken.

B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
It can now be prevented at earlier stage and hence, no need of additional funding. Weaken.

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years

It suggests the proportion of affected people has not increased.
No need of additional funding. Weaken.

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago

This suggests new review is required and followed by more govt. funding.
Strengthen.

E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

No need of govt funds then. Weaken.
_________________
In case you find my posts helpful, give me Kudos. Thank you.
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 535
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2018, 15:14
lakshey1993 wrote:
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

Please share your reviews about this OA!

nexphase wrote:

B. A new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease. Weakens. This one is a little trickier. Just reading it once it seems as if the government should increase funding because the new test shows great promise. But wait - it says "employed for the first time this year" - so technically it's already been budgeted for. Combine that with the fact that the test will detect the disease sooner = cheaper to treat = means that no additional funding will be needed.

C. The number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years. Weakens. In the premise it states that the number of cases doubled compared to four years ago. However choice C states that the increase in the # of cases is in line with the overall population.

D. A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago. Correct - No Effect The correct answer is the one that either strengthens the argument or has no effect. Let's look at this statement - experts reviewed funding four years ago. What's the conclusion from this statement? Nothing. We don't know whether the committee felt funding is adequate or inadequate. All we know is that they reviewed funding four years ago. Written this way, choice D has no effect on the argument and is the correct answer. Had it been written "A committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago and found it inadequate" then it would weaken the argument.

mikemcgarry, GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

I understand why D does not weaken the argument but I'm still confused about why B and C are weakeners.

In B:
If more cases are detected, then won't they need more money? I do understand that an earlier detection might cost less. But nevertheless, all the detected cases would need medical attention, costing money. Suppose, if the number increased from 500 (original number) to 1000 (detected with new test), then additional 500 patients would need to be taken care of. As a result, more money would be needed.

In C:
5 years back: Population = 100k, Diagnosed: 10% => Patients to treat = 10k
Now: Population = 1000k, Diagnosed: 10% => Patients to treat = 100k
Even though we have the "same fraction of the population", won't be still need to cure those extra patients?

Thanks!
_________________

If you found my post useful, KUDOS are much appreciated. Giving Kudos is a great way to thank and motivate contributors, without costing you anything.
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1200
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2019, 20:23
The conclusion is that the government should allocate funds to research and development.

We are asked to find an answer that does NOT WEAKEN this - so either strengthens the need for funding allocation or is neutral.

A is incorrect because it argues against funding - its available already.
B is incorrect because it argues against any further action - a new test is now available.
C is incorrect because it suggests that this isn't a new problem. By analogy, if it is expected that 20% of the population get sick every year from the common cold, then why would further action be required if this 20% has remain unchanged for the last 5 years?
D is correct because it tells us that the last time a review was undertaken was a long time ago (4 years), so there may be a need to review funding now.
E is incorrect because it tells us that someone has already supplied funds, so we don't really need government funding.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if I have helped you
Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2018
Posts: 32
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 670 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 00:53
Bunuel MartyTargetTestPrep daagh sayantanc2k GMATNinja GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354

It seems all three options B C and D if built with good background story can somehow not weaken the conclusion.

Is it a well drafted question experts?
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 780
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 03:20
Pankaj1Agarwal wrote:
Bunuel MartyTargetTestPrep daagh sayantanc2k GMATNinja GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354

It seems all three options B C and D if built with good background story can somehow not weaken the conclusion.

Is it a well drafted question experts?

This is a gmatprep question, so unless the tag is wrong this is a good question. I haven’t read it or solved it, but I’ll say that it’s probably a good question

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here

My RC Guide: Here

Need an expert to grade your AWA? Go: Here

Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1200
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 03:45
Pankaj1Agarwal wrote:
Bunuel MartyTargetTestPrep daagh sayantanc2k GMATNinja GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354

It seems all three options B C and D if built with good background story can somehow not weaken the conclusion.

Is it a well drafted question experts?

Instead of tagging every expert under the sun why don't you use the "Request expert" response function at the top.

Secondly, you shouldn't need to spin a story - thats how you get questions wrong.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if I have helped you
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 618
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2019, 06:41
Pankaj1Agarwal wrote:
It seems all three options B C and D if built with good background story can somehow not weaken the conclusion.

Is it a well drafted question experts?

(B) is a solid weakener. A weakener does not have to destroy the argument. It just has to be a good reason to question the validity of the conclusion, and (B) is such a reason.

(C) is not as good. While it indicates that the incidence of the disease has not increased, it does not change the fact that the number of cases of the disease is increasing. I guess, since it indicates that the incidence of the disease is not increasing, (C) is a reason to question the validity of the conclusion. This choice is not ideal though, since it's not a clear weakener.

(D) is clearly not a weakener. The fact that experts reviewed the funding years ago is virtually meaningless. We don't even know what the committee's conclusion was. It could even have been that more funding is warranted.

So, (B) is clearly a weakener. (C) could be better, but is passable, and the question is saved by the fact that (D) is clearly not a weakener, and so, the correct answer is clear.
_________________

# Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 327
Location: India
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
WE: Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2019, 03:42
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.
All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

Premise: The question refers to malicitis, a rare disease, which is increasing rapidly. It says that number of reports this year is twice to that of our years ago.

Conclusion: ‘Should’ indicates that this is conclusion. It says that govt. needs to allocate more funds for the disease’s treatment and prevention.

To verify that our analyses is correct we can do the X → Y test where first two sentences equate to X and last sentence equates to Y.

Question stem asks for options which doesn’t weakens the argument conclusion. So, it may be something which is neutral to argument or strengthens the conclusion.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized – WRONG. Previous funds availability shows that new funding would be bad decision. So, it weakens straight forward and hence wrong.
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease – WRONG. It might be possible according to this option that new technology detects the disease at an early stage which was not possible 4 years ago. Usage of word ‘considerably’ modifies the early detection thus makes it extreme. And finally, logically also an external factor results in high detection rate. Hence this one is WRONG for various reasons.
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years – WRONG. A ratio-wise distribution means population has increased accordingly. Personally, this is quite close as far correctness is concerned as it somewhat points towards increasing the funding(for the sole reason that population has increased – number of reported people has increased). But if that’s so does it mean that early detected people with the disease need similar amount of funding as others. All in all, here an additional assumption is required which makes the option wrong for that reason.
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago – CORRECT. As it happened in past, it is irrelevant. It does strengthens the conclusion that increased cases of disease needs a relook on the funding part so that sufficient funds are available to prevent and treat the disease but that’s something we need to assume. If sufficient funds are available even though experts reviewed the funding four years ago, this becomes a neutral point to make.
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years – WRONG. Funding data if analyzed by govt. would show fewer cases as a private foundation has funded ‘sufficiently’ for next five years. So, govt. might not need to further provide any funds.

Answer (D).
_________________
Ephemeral Epiphany..!

GMATPREP1 590(Q48,V23) March 6, 2019
GMATPREP2 610(Q44,V29) June 10, 2019
GMATPREPSoft1 680(Q48,V35) June 26, 2019
Re: A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2019, 03:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequenc

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne