GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 24 May 2020, 22:20

### 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 researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Posts: 1
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2014, 01:05
KyleWiddison wrote:
B is a very tempting answer here because the conclusion bundles together mental health and physical disease. This problem type, however, is a very specific CR assumption subtype. In this subtype, the argument will present two factors that demonstrate correlation - in this case Immune System and Mental Illness. The conclusion asserts a causation (without any rationale) from one factor to the next - here the argument concludes that the Immune System protects against Mental Illness. The implicit assumption in that line of reasoning is that the causation does NOT go in the other direction or in other words you have to assume that Mental Illness does not impact the immune system. Answer choice D states that assumption correctly.

KW

But why the author mentioned about "physical disease"? It's really confusing
Thx.
Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 31
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 14:50
1
I choose D.

Among all type of trick one of the trick to crack assumption question is - remove all alternative cause to the problem.
Here it is mention x( low -immune system) cause mental illness and some physical problem.
conclusion - y( high -immune system protect the mental health n pp)

see the cause for the problem that is X and x cause y -make sense
y cause x - reverse- destroy -uncertain
but Y doesn't cause x - is true and states the same point in reverse order.

so assumption is - a patient with low immune system can have mental unsoundness but patient suffering from mental issues not necessarily have low immune system some other cause can be also be responsible - y doesn't cause x.

I am not sure whether it is true or not but i use this Trick - for such question when struck between two option check out extreme word like option c - sounds right but use of "Cannot" doesn't justify argument, as it says good immune system protect against mental illness but will not cause any damage certainly - is not claimed. so c is removed.
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1861
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2015, 16:23
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

The researcher concludes that the immune system has a protective effect against mental illness because people score lower on mental health tests than the people with normal to high immune-system activity.

The researcher's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does. The argument compares normal to high versus low levels so this doesn't affect the argument.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.doesn't affect the argument that normal to high immune-system is protective
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.argument only goes as far as to say that it is protective, not that it eliminate the possibility of mental illness
(D) Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease.This is necessary, as otherwise it would reverse the purported causal relationship.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.doesn't affect argument
Manager
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Posts: 69
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 610 Q47 V27
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Project Management (Health Care)
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2016, 02:22
ritula wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question
Question No.: 7
Page: 118
Difficulty:

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.
B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.

- The data/premise indicates a correlation.
- The assumption is of causation. Specifically: immune system situation (lets call it X) --> Mental functioning (lets call it Y)
- Hence there are several common assumption: Y-\-> X (negating the possibility to opposite causation), Z -\->X (negating a possible other cause).

[X] - A - the comparison within the group of High/Med immune system is not mentioned - out of scope.
[X] - B - This choice might be tempting. but, when we try to negate, we see the immune system might protect against "things" with different effects on the body.
[X] - C - this answer is too extreme.
[V] - D - fits the Y-/->X common assumption.
[X] - E - Psychological treatment and its effectiveness is out of scope.
Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 39
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2017, 01:14
1
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

This is a cause and effect assumption problem, where is X causes Y. So the assumption is that Y does not cause X. It's mentioned in Manhattan book.

The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.
We are not comparing between high immune system or normal immune system.

B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
We are not concerned with the effects of it.

C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
The conclusion is that immune system as whole protects against the mental illness and against physical disease. Not high immune system or low immune system.

D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
Well this is stated in the premise that immune system disbalance cause mental illness and so is in the conclusion. Refer to the cause and effect relation.

E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical thereabout its effectivness.
We are not again not concerned about the effectiveness.
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1090
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2017, 22:51
ritula wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question
Question No.: 7
Page: 118
Difficulty:

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.
B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.

Premise 1
:A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity.

Conclusion
: The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

D says that the reason for the poor mental health test is low immune system activity .
If this is not true then the argument falls as low level of immune activity is caused by poor mental health and the conclusion drawn would be wrong
Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2017
Posts: 10
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2017, 02:23
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

Conclusion : Immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does. >> Does not address the conclusion and researcher is not relying on a comparison between high and normal immune system
B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems. >> Irrelevant
C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness. >> Does not address conclusion.
D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease. >> Applying assumption negation, this would remove the entire evidence for conclusion basis i.e. If mental illness causes people's immune-system activity to decrease, then we cannot draw the conclusion from the experiment that immune system protects against mental illness.

E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment. >> Irrelevant
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2018, 18:24

Can I discard (C) on the grounds that it is out of scope instead of using negation?

Quote:
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system (IS) activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health(MH) than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease (PD).

Conclusion: IS helps to PREVENT PD and MD
(I got a bit engaged for few mins to think whether it prevents 100% or

Premise: Low IS levels -> Scoring lower on MH tests
(Now I do not see any connection of above %tages)

The key crux of the argument: Author has broadened the scope in conclusion.
The premise is specific about levels of IS and MH and the author has no such mention of modifiers in conclusion.

Quote:
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.

What option do I have than to negate this choice?
Can I use my above rationale that since customer is NOT talking about modifiers in conclusion?
I can eliminate this choice with a blind eye.
How do I bridge gap between premise and conclusion if I do not want to negate this choice?

I initially was confused between A and C since I misread modifiers in premise (high / low)
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 88
GMAT 1: 610 Q46 V28
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2018, 04:38
egmat wrote:
This is a classical causal argument. Note how the argument is presented:

The author starts with an observation that

low levels of immune-system and lower score on tests of mental health occur together. Based on this co-incidence, the author concludes Immune system protects against mental illness.

Now this begs the question, what about the scenario in which mental health impacted immune system (reverse causation) such that low score on mental health caused low immune system performance. However, since the author discounts such a scenario, he assumes such a scenario will not occur. Choice D says the same and is your answer.

Below is another similar argument. Can you find the assumption (along the same lines) in that argument.

A study followed a group of teenagers who had never smoked and tracked whether they took up smoking and how their mental health changed. After one year, the incidence of depression among those who had taken up smoking was four times as high as it was among those who had not. Since nicotine in cigarettes changes brain chemistry, perhaps thereby affecting mood, it is likely that smoking contributes to depression in teenagers

egmat

The assumption for the blue part is,

Author assumes that depression does not lead teenagers into smoking.

Saurabh
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2016
Posts: 90
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GPA: 4
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Dec 2018, 04:36
Argument:
Immunity increase --> Illness decreases

Assumption:
Illness increases --> no effect on Immunity or atleast Immunity won't decrease
Intern
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Posts: 22
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2019, 06:54
egmat wrote:
supri23 wrote:
ritula wrote:
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much
lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher
concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against
physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity
does.
B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.

I picked C.I am not finding why c is wrong.Can u explain why c is wrong?

Hi,

To tackle your doubt, let me begin from the passage itself.

Understanding the Passage

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity.

This statement talks about a discovery by a researcher. The researcher discovered that people who have

low immune system activity have lower mental health
normal or high immune system activity have better mental health.

So, what he saw was that mental health increased with increase in immune system activity.

The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

The researcher thought about the reason as to why this pattern exists. He thought an explanation for this pattern is that immune system protects against mental illness or poor mental health. If his explanation is true, then people with lower immune system should have poorer mental health than people with normal or higher immune system activity. This is what he has observed. So, he made the conclusion as stated in the above statement of the passage.

Pre-thinking Assumption

Now, what is the assumption built in the conclusion drawn by the researcher?

The assumption is that there is no other explanation which could explain the given observed pattern. If there are other explanations for the observed pattern, then it would cast a serious doubt on the conclusion drawn by the author.

Now, what could be an alternate explanation?

This could be a hard question for people new to causal arguments but for people who have done some practice of causal arguments, they can figure out the answer to this quite easily.

Remember, the researchers concluded that immune system protects against mental illness because this can explain the observed pattern. Now, if we say that mental illness causes decline in immune system activity, then even this statement could explain the given observed pattern (where both immune system activity and mental health increase or decrease simultaneously). Now, if this could also be an explanation, then the author must have considered this explanation and 'assumed' that this cannot be be true.

So, an assumption in the above argument is that mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease. This is what option D is.

Now, coming to option C:

People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.

First of all, we need to think why does the author need to assume this? Remember a golden rule:

The author assumes only those things without which his argument will not hold true.

For this reason, the 'assumptions' are called must be true statements, which means that the assumptions must be true for the conclusion to hold true.

Now, is Option C a must be true statement?

What if option C is false i.e. People with high immune-system activity can develop mental illness. Will it falsify the conclusion?

The answer is No. The conclusion can still hold even when this statement is false. Therefore, it cannot be an assumption.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Also the option C is extreme and which is not the tone of the argument.
VP
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 1360
Location: United States (KS)
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2019, 11:12
Quote:
What if high immune-system activity protects against mental illness just as well as normal immune-system activity? In that case, we could still conclude that the immune systems protects against mental illness. All that matters is whether LOW immune-system activity offers LESS protection against mental illness than normal/high activity. This assumption is not necessary, so eliminate (A).

GMATNinja

When you do too much of Sentence Correction.
_________________
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long

Why You Don’t Deserve A 700 On Your GMAT

Learn from the Legend himself: All GMAT Ninja LIVE YouTube videos by topic
You are missing on great learning if you don't know what this is: Project SC Butler
Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2017
Posts: 113
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-syst  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2019, 10:33
ritula wrote:
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

Let's understand the argument. The argument tries to achieve a causal relationship between the performance on tests to the effect of immune system on mental health. and the argument reaches the conclusion that immune system protects against mental illness as well as physical disease.

we have to eliminate other causes that could have led to the conclusion or show that the reverse is not true.

Quote:
(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.

no comparison between the high immune system and normal immune system in the argument. eliminated

Quote:
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.

effects of the illness is not discussed in the argument. eliminated

Quote:
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.

cannot is an extreme word. how can we conclude that poeple with high immune systems cannot develop mental illness. we only know that people with high immune systems scored better on the tests. eliminated.

Quote:
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.

this shows that the reverse is not true. if mental illness was the reason to decrease immune activity then the conclusion falls apart. so we absolutely need this assumption to show that the causal relation is A causes B and not B causes A. correct

Quote:
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.

treatment of the illness is not talked about in the passage. eliminated
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8989
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2020, 05:06
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.
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of   [#permalink] 13 Jan 2020, 05:06

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ]