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 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
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 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.
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (02:15) correct
37%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 2778
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT:
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.
"Despite improvements in treatment for asthma" Assumption Question
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT:
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.
"Despite improvements in treatment for asthma" Assumption Question
09 Jul 2013, 01:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
I can see that some of the members have shared good analysis of the questions but still some of the doubts keep cropping up again. Let me add my two cents to it:
Let's first understand the passage:
Understanding the Passage
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. - So, we have an unexpected thing here: death rate from Asthma increased even though there have been improvements in the treatment.
Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. - We have two possible explanations for the unexpected thing.
First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. - This means that probably the death rate has not increased per se but now, we are recording more deaths for every 100 deaths. For example: in the past, we used to record only 40 deaths for 100 actual deaths but now, we record, say, 70 deaths for every 100 deaths. So, this explains the increase in death rate observed even though we have better treatment.
Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. - This means that one adverse factor has increased - pollution has increased. So, even though we have better treatments but the effect of that has been nullified or even superseded by the effect of the increase in pollution. This fact also explains increase in death rates observed.
However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records - This counters first reason that increase in death rates is because of more accurate recording. It says that deaths have increase dramatically even in cities which have had accurate recording from a long time. So, the first reason cannot explain the rise in deaths.
and with little or no urban pollution, - This counters the second reason. If there is no pollution, then pollution cannot be the cause of increased deaths.
one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms. - This is the conclusion of the argument. It basically says that since the other two reasons cannot explain the increase in deaths, the reason is the use of bronchial inhalers.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT: - It means that we'll have four statements which will support the conclusion (do you remember the conclusion?!) and one statement which will not support the conclusion and this statement is the answer of this.
Option Statement Analysis
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade. - Does this support the conclusion that the use of bronchial inhalers is the cause of increased death rates? The answer is No. I can only link this option statement with the second reason given about urban pollution, but the second reason has already been countered in the last statement of the passage, so this option statement is irrelevant and therefore, could be the correct option statement.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years. - This option statement further counters Reason 1 and thereby supports the conclusion.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen. - This statement directly supports the conclusion.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures. - This statement also supports the conclusion.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment. - This suggests that increase in deaths due to Asthma could be due to the introduction of bronchial inhalers. Therefore, this statement also supports the conclusion.
As we can see, option A is the clear winner.
To avoid making this post too lengthy, let me respond to the next question in the next post.
Thanks,
Chiranjeev
I can see that some of the members have shared good analysis of the questions but still some of the doubts keep cropping up again. Let me add my two cents to it:
Let's first understand the passage:
Understanding the Passage
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. - So, we have an unexpected thing here: death rate from Asthma increased even though there have been improvements in the treatment.
Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. - We have two possible explanations for the unexpected thing.
First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. - This means that probably the death rate has not increased per se but now, we are recording more deaths for every 100 deaths. For example: in the past, we used to record only 40 deaths for 100 actual deaths but now, we record, say, 70 deaths for every 100 deaths. So, this explains the increase in death rate observed even though we have better treatment.
Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. - This means that one adverse factor has increased - pollution has increased. So, even though we have better treatments but the effect of that has been nullified or even superseded by the effect of the increase in pollution. This fact also explains increase in death rates observed.
However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records - This counters first reason that increase in death rates is because of more accurate recording. It says that deaths have increase dramatically even in cities which have had accurate recording from a long time. So, the first reason cannot explain the rise in deaths.
and with little or no urban pollution, - This counters the second reason. If there is no pollution, then pollution cannot be the cause of increased deaths.
one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms. - This is the conclusion of the argument. It basically says that since the other two reasons cannot explain the increase in deaths, the reason is the use of bronchial inhalers.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT: - It means that we'll have four statements which will support the conclusion (do you remember the conclusion?!) and one statement which will not support the conclusion and this statement is the answer of this.
Option Statement Analysis
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade. - Does this support the conclusion that the use of bronchial inhalers is the cause of increased death rates? The answer is No. I can only link this option statement with the second reason given about urban pollution, but the second reason has already been countered in the last statement of the passage, so this option statement is irrelevant and therefore, could be the correct option statement.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years. - This option statement further counters Reason 1 and thereby supports the conclusion.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen. - This statement directly supports the conclusion.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures. - This statement also supports the conclusion.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment. - This suggests that increase in deaths due to Asthma could be due to the introduction of bronchial inhalers. Therefore, this statement also supports the conclusion.
As we can see, option A is the clear winner.
To avoid making this post too lengthy, let me respond to the next question in the next post.
Thanks,
Chiranjeev
General Discussion
13 Feb 2017, 18:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the
death rate from this disease has doubled during the past
decade from its previous rate. Two possible explanations
for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of
deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and
accurate in the past decade than it had been previously.
Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution.
However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has
increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing,
comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban
pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of
increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma
sufferers to relieve their symptoms.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the
argument EXCEPT:
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past
decade.
This choice does not support the argument.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for
the past twenty years as for the past ten years.
If the records are accurate that means the argument is correct as the data supports the argument.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make
the lungs more sensitive to irritation by
airborne pollen.
supports the conclusion of the argument that inhalers are responsible
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of
asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid
more beneficial measures.
Again supporting the inhaler theory.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not
available as an asthma treatment.
The argument explains that the number of cases have increased in the last 10 years, so supports
death rate from this disease has doubled during the past
decade from its previous rate. Two possible explanations
for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of
deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and
accurate in the past decade than it had been previously.
Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution.
However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has
increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing,
comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban
pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of
increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma
sufferers to relieve their symptoms.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the
argument EXCEPT:
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past
decade.
This choice does not support the argument.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for
the past twenty years as for the past ten years.
If the records are accurate that means the argument is correct as the data supports the argument.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make
the lungs more sensitive to irritation by
airborne pollen.
supports the conclusion of the argument that inhalers are responsible
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of
asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid
more beneficial measures.
Again supporting the inhaler theory.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not
available as an asthma treatment.
The argument explains that the number of cases have increased in the last 10 years, so supports
