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

Question

According to government figures, the rate of people treated for melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer, has increased dramatically since 1980. These statistics prove that efforts to halt the destruction of the ozone layer, which serves to filter out the cancer-causing ultraviolet rays of the sun, have been largely unsuccessful.

The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) The increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma did not result from an improved ability to detect the disease at a treatable stage of development.
 
B) The chances that an individual who contracts melanoma will survive have not improved since 1980.

C) Due to improvements in medical technology, melanoma patients are more likely to live longer after detection of the disease than they were in 1980.

D) It is highly unlikely that medical researchers will discover a cure for melanoma at any time in the foreseeable future.

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.

dimmak · Accepted Answer

Nope, it is E

The conclusion of the argument is that "efforts to halt the destruction of the ozone layer (...) have been largely unsuccessful."

The author assumes that the increase of people treated for melanoma is a direct consequence of ozone layer.

A) The increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma did not result from an improved ability to detect the disease at a treatable stage of development.  Tempting, but detecting the disease at a treatable stage is irrelevant to the argument and out of scope 
B) The chances that an individual who contracts melanoma will survive have not improved since 1980.  So what? 
C) Due to improvements in medical technology, melanoma patients are more likely to live longer after detection of the disease than they were in 1980.  So what? 
D) It is highly unlikely that medical researchers will discover a cure for melanoma at any time in the foreseeable future.  Out of scope 
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.  Bingo!, here we have the relation between melanoma and the ozone layer

gvij2017 · Answer

A kind of statistics is given that X is increasing. 
and this statistics has proved that efforts to halt ozone layer depletion have been unsuccessful.

so assumption is that x will continue to increase if ozone depletion is not halted by government. 
E is absolutely correct.

meetnikhil · Answer

I still have doubt whether it's E. I will still go with A.
Request GMATNinja to comment.

vineethk929 · Answer

I wants to present my reason behind choosing option E...
Option E directly attacks the conclusion ...chlofloro carbons destroy ozone ..inturn causing increase in cancer particals..
Whereas A gives indirect solution..simply saying ..it is other reason rather than the reason given in conclusion...
Hope it helps

Sent from my SM-J700F using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

ysun95 · Answer

How is A not correct?

If negate A, 
The increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma  DID  result from an improved ability to detect the disease at a treatable stage of development. 
Then the conclusion would be wrong. Increase in treatments is not because the efforts failed, it is because more people can be detected early.
 
Assumption+Evidence=Conclusion
E itself feels like a restate of conclusion, not an assumption.

madhukaramar · Answer

The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) The increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma did not result from an improved ability to detect the disease at a treatable stage of development.
 B) The chances that an individual who contracts melanoma will survive have not improved since 1980.
 C) Due to improvements in medical technology, melanoma patients are more likely to live longer after detection of the disease than they were in 1980.
 D) It is highly unlikely that medical researchers will discover a cure for melanoma at any time in the foreseeable future.
 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

Hello -  GMATNinja   abhimahna  -

Could you kindly comment on this question. I really don't think - E can be the answer here. My Analysis below -

Assumption is something - which is a must for conclusion to hold true. Also a few of the assumptions of a causal relation (A - caused - B) are -
 -- B did not cause A
 -- Any thing else did not caused B. (Only A - caused B)

Now coming back to the question - 
Argument (summary) - The destruction of ozone layer is the reason behind the increased rate of melanom disease.

Option A is telling - Anything else (i.e. Improvement of detection technique of decease) is not the reason of the increased rate.
Choice E however , talks about a specific chemical - "chlorofluorocarbons" and says unless govt. bans the chemical, rate of melanoma will continue to increase.

Choice E is definitely a strengthener but we can't say it has to be true for conclusion to hold. The reason is use of specific detail on - "chlorofluorocarbons". What if this is not "chlorofluorocarbons" but something else. Choice E - can be considered if it is as shown below -

The rate of melanoma will continue to increase unless the destruction of ozone layer stops, --- Now this needs to be true for the conclusion to hold.

So, A seems to be the clear winner here.

Hero8888 · Answer

The most useful technique to find assumption is to negate the assumption and see whether it weakens conclusion. If so, then this is our assumption.  Let's negate it:

E. The rate of melanoma will  NOT  continue to increase unless ... ban on ... chlorofluorocarbons, responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer.

AND WHAT? It has no effect on the conclusion:

... efforts to halt the destruction of the ozone layer ... have been largely unsuccessful.

Just forget this question and move on.

meron · Answer

GMATNinja , Could you please explain this OA?

alexphamster · Answer

A) The increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma did not result from an improved ability to detect the disease at a treatable stage of development. Trick answer, as the argument is regarding the ozone, not about the disease 
B) The chances that an individual who contracts melanoma will survive have not improved since 1980. Out of scope 
C) Due to improvements in medical technology, melanoma patients are more likely to live longer after detection of the disease than they were in 1980. Out of Scope 
D) It is highly unlikely that medical researchers will discover a cure for melanoma at any time in the foreseeable future. Out of Scope 
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. Correct

Iamnowjust · Answer

Assumption is a bridge that connects premises and conclusion. All actions that we have in the statement were done in the past. How can be E the right answer if it states facts about the future?

BS! And folks who are trying to sell E as a correct answer, do you really think that E is logical or you just want to feed your ego? ?

Posted from my mobile device

tamal99 · Answer

Option E is kind of strengthening. Assumption should be IMO A.

REGARDS,
TAMAL

Posted from my mobile device

shivamguptaaa · Answer

ccording to government figures, the rate of people treated for melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer, has increased dramatically since 1980. These statistics prove that efforts to halt the destruction of the ozone layer, which serves to filter out the cancer-causing ultraviolet rays of the sun, have been largely unsuccessful.

The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) The increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma did not result from an improved ability to detect the disease at a treatable stage of development.
B) The chances that an individual who contracts melanoma will survive have not improved since 1980.
C) Due to improvements in medical technology, melanoma patients are more likely to live longer after detection of the disease than they were in 1980.
D) It is highly unlikely that medical researchers will discover a cure for melanoma at any time in the foreseeable future.
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.

salilgupta4180 · Answer

If you look carefully, the question asks for assumption.

Option A is a weakener as it is refutes the fact that the Ozone is getting depleted by suggesting an alternate that the disease is being diagnosed more because of improved medical equipment's. Something that weakens the conclusion cannot be an assumption

Option E on the contrary certifies the fact that Ozone depletion is the sole reason for the disease and will continue to increase because of CFC's in the atmosphere. Hence an assumption.

_________________
kudos please if it helped you.

tejyr · Answer

E when negated is weakening the argument.

Arro44 · Answer

The tricky part about A is the mentioning of the treatable stage, try to use that as a red flag to filter out the argument.

Afterwards, it becomes fairly apparent that E should be the answer.

gyan26 · Answer

Hey... I don't get how you dismissed option A. Here's my explanation, correct me if i'm wrong

The conclusion is that the efforts to curb ozone layer depletion have been unsuccessful.

The evidence/Argument given to arrive at the conclusion is the increase in the rate of people treated for melanoma has increased

Now... To get from the evidence to conclusion, one would have to assume that the rate of people treated for melanoma is directly proportional to the amount of ozonelayer depletion ONLY and that there is no other factor that can change the rate of people treated other than the ozone layer depletion.

Option A states that the rate of people treated did not increase because of another reason... Which is what the govt assumed to get to the said conclusion in the first place.
Hence option A should be correct

Posted from my mobile device

TaN1213 · Answer

With A being in the options, E seems very less likely to be correct.
Experts, would you please assist ?
Thank you.

pk123 · Answer

Agree with madhukaramar, I too believe E is a strengthener as rethinking says nothing else resulted in increase in rate of melanoma except the ozone layer depletion....E looks more as a strengthener, solidifying the trust that govt need to intervene by posing ban on CFC

GMATNinja, VeritasprepKarishma   awaiting your expert reply. More likely where did we falter in our thinking approach that E became answer, what should be kept in mind?

Kem12 · Answer

Hi I initially picks A but on giving it a 2nd look, E is correct. Going by your negation of A. The conclusion will still be true: increased early detection still implies that more people are still getting infected by melanoma, it's just detected earlier. So negating option A cannot completely rule out the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards