According to government figures, the rate of people treated for melano

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma nightblade354 please explain difference b/w A and E

I do not do Kaplan questions, as they are usually really flimsy and poor quality.

Premise : rate of people treated for melanoma has increased dramatically since 1980.

Conclusion: The statistics proves that efforts to halt the destruction of ozone layer have largely been unsuccessful.

Let's try to find the ways in which the conclusion is weakened given the premise.

How to get conclusion to weaken(pre-thinking):
1. What if the rate for people being treated was low because there was no way for anyone to find out if someone had melanoma until it was too late.
2. What if there are multiple reasons for melanoma and destruction of ozone is only one.

If these are true, then the statistics do not prove that the efforts to halt the destruction of ozone layer have been unsuccessful.

Hence, the assumptions are :

1. The increase in rate of people in whom the melanoma was detected in earlier stages was not improved.
2. Melanoma can only caused by harmful rays from sun and not anything else, say tanning machine.

The answer is definitely A.

Looking at E.
E) The rate of melanoma will continue to increase unless the government poses a ban on the use of chlorofluorocarbons, which are largely responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer.

How is a conclusion that is trying to prove something based on past result be assuming something from future ? That totally nonsensical.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Identify the Question Type:

The phrase "the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions" tells us that this is an Assumption question. When we have an Assumption question, we need to identify the evidence and conclusion, and then find the assumption that links the two together.

Untangle the Stimulus:

Conclusion: Efforts to stop the destruction of the ozone layer have been unsuccessful.

Evidence: The number of" people treated for melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer ," has increased considerably since 1980. The ozone layer filters out the cancer causing rays of the sun.

Predict the Answer:

We need to determine the assumption that links the evidence to the author’s conclusion. The author assumes that the increase in treatment for melanoma is the related to the destruction of the ozone because it is the ozone that blocks out cancer-causing rays of the sun

Evaluate the Choices:

The only Answer Choice that logically supports the author’s conclusion is Choice (E) that the number of melanoma cases will continue to rise unless the government poses bans on chemicals that are known to destroy the ozone layer.

Choice (A): is out of scope; detecting the disease at a treatable stage is irrelevant to this argument.

Choice (B): is out of scope. Survivor rates of patients with melanoma are not mentioned.

Choice (C): is out of scope. Advancements to medical technology are not relevant to the author’s argument.

Choice (D): is out of scope. A cure for melanoma is not the focus of the author’s argument.

Option A is there to test whether you are able to identify the premise and conclusion. A is challenging the premise and negating it will not break the conclusion. This is cause-effect assumption where assumption as you prethink is that only the cause is responsible for effect or except the cause mentioned in argument no other cause have that effect.

Thanks

Option E is correct.
Option A negates one possibility for the rise in cancer patients but there might be other reasons, which is not mentioned in A.
Option E links Ozone and Cancer clearly for X-->Y is required.

The author is using "probable rise in melanoma cases" as the premise to draw conclusion on "Ozone layer depletion".

Clearly, the Assumption should defend against any alternate reason that could lead to this increment in melanoma cases.

Ans A provides one such defender and is the correct answer.
Ans E is a prediction (will continue) and is clearly irrelevant.

According to me conclusion is : UV ray is causing Skin cncer
I am trying negation technique
Option A [if we try to negate]- It is saying since early detection has increease rate
Also i want to know how option E is correct ?

Request your explanation on this.

I thought A is the perfect assumption as E is itself a conclusion.

Hoping for a prompt response on this from your side.

You analysis is correct. (A) is the best choice since arriving at the conclusion requires assuming that there is not an alternative explanation for the change.

Also, (E) is not a necessary assumption. The support for the conclusion does not depend on any assumption about the number of cases of melanoma in the future.

Hello, RahulHGGmat. I see that Marty has already beaten me to the punch, but I will merely add that I was not convinced with any of the answer choices, whose details work against them. I echo what nightblade354 has written above, in this post. (If my back were against the wall and I had to select the best of the five options presented, I would go with Marty.)

- Andrew

Why is the answer not A ? It clearly provides explanation why an alternate cause for the increase in Melanoma rate is not possible.

Edit: I just saw 2 of the experts supporting A and that made me question my analysis



Since, confusion is between A & E, I'll present my reasons for these two.

Premise: Rate of treatment for people with melanoma increased
Conclusion: Ozone saving efforts failed
Assumption: Ozone depletion is the reason


Meaning: Improved detection is not the reason. This definitely strengthens the conclusion. In the absence of any other stronger assumption, this remains the best choice.



Meaning: CFC or Ozone depletion is the reason. Ambiguous?
Also, future cause and effect could be completely independent of what factor was the cause in past.