Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2206:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Let’s dive deep into advanced CR to ace GMAT Focus! Join this webinar to unlock the secrets to conquering Boldface and Paradox questions with expert insights and strategies. Elevate your skills and boost your GMAT Verbal Score now!
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
03 May 2025, 06:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
48% (01:59) correct
52%
(02:15)
wrong
based on 200
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
After a visit to the municipal swimming pool, almost the entire schoolbody of Washington Junior High School contracted a mysterious skin ailment. The ailment took the form of a severe rash, which the school doctor diagnosed as an allergy caused by a chemical irritant present in the pool’s water, and accordingly prescribed a course of treatment. Although the municipal authorities initially questioned the doctor’s findings, because within two days of beginning the prescribed course of treatment most of the children were cured, they hurriedly accepted responsibility, thus opening themselves to the possibility of lawsuits.
Which of the following is necessary to determine how to judge the decision of the municipal authorities to accept culpability?
(A) Whether all children who visited the pool contracted the rash on that day, and to the same degree of intensity
(B) Whether the water supplied to the pool by the municipal corporation is potable
(C) Whether all children responded equally to the treatment prescribed by the doctor
(D) Whether the prescribed treatment works in cases of other non-chemically-induced ailments
(E) Whether the rashes took more than four days to clear up completely
Which of the following is necessary to determine how to judge the decision of the municipal authorities to accept culpability?
(A) Whether all children who visited the pool contracted the rash on that day, and to the same degree of intensity
(B) Whether the water supplied to the pool by the municipal corporation is potable
(C) Whether all children responded equally to the treatment prescribed by the doctor
(D) Whether the prescribed treatment works in cases of other non-chemically-induced ailments
(E) Whether the rashes took more than four days to clear up completely
03 May 2025, 09:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think the answer to this question should be A!
(A) Whether all children who visited the pool contracted the rash on that day, and to the same degree of intensity
✅ Relevant, because if only some kids got the rash or the rash was very different in how bad it was, it could make people doubt that the pool water was the only cause. But if all kids got the same kind of rash after going to the pool, it strongly supports the idea that the pool caused it — which would justify the municipal authorities accepting blame.
(B) Whether the water supplied to the pool by the municipal corporation is potable
❌ - Irrelevant. Potable water standards are for drinking, not for swimming.
(C) Whether all children responded equally to the treatment prescribed by the doctor
❌ Irrelevant. This is about treatment effectiveness, not the cause of the rash or responsibility.
(D) Whether the prescribed treatment works in cases of other non-chemically-induced ailments
❌ Irrelevant. It does not matter if it works for other conditions. It doesn’t help us judge this specific case!
(E) Whether the rashes took more than four days to clear up completely
❌ Irrelevant. Timing of healing doesn't help determine!
(A) Whether all children who visited the pool contracted the rash on that day, and to the same degree of intensity
✅ Relevant, because if only some kids got the rash or the rash was very different in how bad it was, it could make people doubt that the pool water was the only cause. But if all kids got the same kind of rash after going to the pool, it strongly supports the idea that the pool caused it — which would justify the municipal authorities accepting blame.
(B) Whether the water supplied to the pool by the municipal corporation is potable
❌ - Irrelevant. Potable water standards are for drinking, not for swimming.
(C) Whether all children responded equally to the treatment prescribed by the doctor
❌ Irrelevant. This is about treatment effectiveness, not the cause of the rash or responsibility.
(D) Whether the prescribed treatment works in cases of other non-chemically-induced ailments
❌ Irrelevant. It does not matter if it works for other conditions. It doesn’t help us judge this specific case!
(E) Whether the rashes took more than four days to clear up completely
❌ Irrelevant. Timing of healing doesn't help determine!
siddhantvarma
06 May 2025, 00:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Choice D makes sense to me.
The crux ->
- After using the pool, all the students got a skin ailment
- The doctor diagnosed the cause to be a chemical present in the pool water
- The doctor prescribed a course of treatment
- The treatment worked
- Because the treatment worked, the municipal authorities (in charge of the pool) took responsibility, opening themselves to lawsuits
The question ->
What is something that is necessary to correctly judge/assess/evaluate the decision of the municipal authorities to accept responsibility?
In other words -> what is something that is a must to really determine if the decision to accept responsibility was correct?
Analysis ->
The doctor's treatment clearly worked. But does that mean that the doctor's diagnosis was correct?
- Is it possible that the cause was not the chemical irritant present in the pool water, but some other reason altogether, and it just so happened that the prescribed treatment works for this other cause too?
I think this is in line with choice D.
Choice D -> Whether the prescribed treatment works in cases of other non-chemically-induced ailments
If the answer to the above is YES
So, this treatment works even in the cases of other non-chemically induced ailments. Then, just based on the fact that this treatment worked here, can we be sure that the cause was the chemical irritant present in the pool?
Not really.
If the answer to the above is NO
So, this treatment does not work for other non-chemically induced ailments. This makes us believe that indeed, given this treatment worked, the root cause is really likely to be the chemical irritant in the pool, in which case, the municipal authorities would be correct to take responsibility.
So,
If the answer to choice D is YES -> it makes us question the soundness of the decision of the municipal authorities to take responsibility.
If the answer to choice D is NO -> it makes us believe more in the soundness of the decision of the municipal authorities to take responsibility.
So, in effect, choice D is clearly something that needs to be answered to determine how to judge the decision of the municipal authorities to accept culpability.
---
Harsha
The crux ->
- After using the pool, all the students got a skin ailment
- The doctor diagnosed the cause to be a chemical present in the pool water
- The doctor prescribed a course of treatment
- The treatment worked
- Because the treatment worked, the municipal authorities (in charge of the pool) took responsibility, opening themselves to lawsuits
The question ->
What is something that is necessary to correctly judge/assess/evaluate the decision of the municipal authorities to accept responsibility?
In other words -> what is something that is a must to really determine if the decision to accept responsibility was correct?
Analysis ->
The doctor's treatment clearly worked. But does that mean that the doctor's diagnosis was correct?
- Is it possible that the cause was not the chemical irritant present in the pool water, but some other reason altogether, and it just so happened that the prescribed treatment works for this other cause too?
I think this is in line with choice D.
Choice D -> Whether the prescribed treatment works in cases of other non-chemically-induced ailments
If the answer to the above is YES
So, this treatment works even in the cases of other non-chemically induced ailments. Then, just based on the fact that this treatment worked here, can we be sure that the cause was the chemical irritant present in the pool?
Not really.
If the answer to the above is NO
So, this treatment does not work for other non-chemically induced ailments. This makes us believe that indeed, given this treatment worked, the root cause is really likely to be the chemical irritant in the pool, in which case, the municipal authorities would be correct to take responsibility.
So,
If the answer to choice D is YES -> it makes us question the soundness of the decision of the municipal authorities to take responsibility.
If the answer to choice D is NO -> it makes us believe more in the soundness of the decision of the municipal authorities to take responsibility.
So, in effect, choice D is clearly something that needs to be answered to determine how to judge the decision of the municipal authorities to accept culpability.
---
Harsha
