It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 14:28

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Posts: 49
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 4
Re: Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2018, 00:20
mikemcgarry GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

Can you please shed more light on D?

Karishma you gave the following explanation :

D. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
This says that % of malaria cases was not much greater (though perhaps a little greater) than % of schistosomiasis cases over the past 5 years. If anything, this weakens our conclusion. It indirectly implies that out of 100 cases 5 yrs ago, malaria cases were slightly more than schistosomiasis cases.

Can you please tell me if my understanding of this is correct?
Say there were 100 cases 5 years ago!
51%-M - 51 cases
49%-S- 49 cases

so S cases were less than M but since now S is the cause of most cases, S would have increased over time.

But we can't say S was greater 5 years ago?

Am i right?
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Nov 2017
Posts: 63
Re: Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2018, 04:21
Very tough..IMO OA is A
In my case, I was confused between A and E
This is my reasoning

A. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by schistosomiasis has remained unchanged, but the percentage of cases caused by malaria has increased substantially.
-> Keep
B. Trends in infectious disease data tend to persist for decades, unless there is a major breakthrough in treatment regimens.
-> 'treatment regimens' : Out of scope
C. Five years ago, many more people died from schistosomiasis than died from malaria.
-> incorrect.
Let's suppose malaria is more fatal than schistomiasis. Then we do not need to think about the percentage.
D. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
-> Incorrect. This is just a fact.
E. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by diseases other than malaria and schistosomiasis did not increase substantially.
-> Keep

I chose A, because let's suppose there is another disease C.
If the percentage of C is 90%, then E can weaken the passage.
But in A, for example, the percentage of schistosomiasis was always 50%, but the percentage of malaria was changed suddenly
,for example, 5% to 50%(Because schistosomiasis was always 50%), it can strengthen the passage.
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7951
Location: Pune, India
Re: Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2018, 03:55
HG0815 wrote:
Very tough..IMO OA is A
In my case, I was confused between A and E
This is my reasoning

A. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by schistosomiasis has remained unchanged, but the percentage of cases caused by malaria has increased substantially.
-> Keep
B. Trends in infectious disease data tend to persist for decades, unless there is a major breakthrough in treatment regimens.
-> 'treatment regimens' : Out of scope
C. Five years ago, many more people died from schistosomiasis than died from malaria.
-> incorrect.
Let's suppose malaria is more fatal than schistomiasis. Then we do not need to think about the percentage.
D. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
-> Incorrect. This is just a fact.
E. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by diseases other than malaria and schistosomiasis did not increase substantially.
-> Keep

I chose A, because let's suppose there is another disease C.
If the percentage of C is 90%, then E can weaken the passage.
But in A, for example, the percentage of schistosomiasis was always 50%, but the percentage of malaria was changed suddenly
,for example, 5% to 50%(Because schistosomiasis was always 50%), it can strengthen the passage.



C cannot be 90% since two most common infectious diseases are malaria and schistosomiasis.

(E) is irrelevant since we are comparing malaria vs schistosomiasis increase. What happened to the number of others is immaterial.

We see that number of schistosomiasis cases has increased substantially. If the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by schistosomiasis has remained same, but the percentage of cases caused by malaria has increased substantially but still in actual number terms, the number of cases of schistosomiasis is the same, it could mean that the initial percentage of schistosomiasis cases was more.

Say if x% cases were of schistosomiasis 5 yrs ago and y% of malaria, assuming that the percentage of cases of schistosomiasis remains constant, when will they account for most of the new disease cases? The number of new cases of schistosomiasis will be x% of the additional number of total cases. They will be majority of the new cases if x > 50%.
Hence (A) works.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7951
Location: Pune, India
Re: Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2018, 01:42
srishti201996 wrote:
mikemcgarry GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

Can you please shed more light on D?

Karishma you gave the following explanation :

D. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
This says that % of malaria cases was not much greater (though perhaps a little greater) than % of schistosomiasis cases over the past 5 years. If anything, this weakens our conclusion. It indirectly implies that out of 100 cases 5 yrs ago, malaria cases were slightly more than schistosomiasis cases.

Can you please tell me if my understanding of this is correct?
Say there were 100 cases 5 years ago!
51%-M - 51 cases
49%-S- 49 cases

so S cases were less than M but since now S is the cause of most cases, S would have increased over time.

But we can't say S was greater 5 years ago?

Am i right?


If schistosomiasis has been primarily responsible for the overall increase in infectious disease cases over the past 5 years and we want to conclude that there must have been more cases of schistosomiasis 5 years ago, we need to say that percentage of schistosomiasis cases has either remained same or decreased slightly.
Only then , if today too they are majority in number in the extra cases, they must have been majority in number 5 years back too.
So (A) works.

Let's look at (D).
Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
(D) says that percentage of malaria cases was not significantly greater than percentage of schistosomiasis cases. We actually want the percentage of schistosomiasis cases to be higher than those of malaria over the past 5 yrs so that majority of extra cases are of schistosomiasis. So option (D) does not work.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4680
Re: Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2018, 17:38
srishti201996 wrote:
mikemcgarry GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

Can you please shed more light on D?

Karishma you gave the following explanation :

D. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
This says that % of malaria cases was not much greater (though perhaps a little greater) than % of schistosomiasis cases over the past 5 years. If anything, this weakens our conclusion. It indirectly implies that out of 100 cases 5 yrs ago, malaria cases were slightly more than schistosomiasis cases.

Can you please tell me if my understanding of this is correct?
Say there were 100 cases 5 years ago!
51%-M - 51 cases
49%-S- 49 cases

so S cases were less than M but since now S is the cause of most cases, S would have increased over time.

But we can't say S was greater 5 years ago?

Am i right?

Dear srishti201996,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, context is everything. The prompt says, "Over the past five years, schistosomiasis has been primarily responsible for the overall increase in infectious disease cases." That's evidence. That means that when we look at the total number of new cases of infectious disease, schistosomiasis accounts for well over 50% of them. If the number new cases of malaria were anything close, anything comparable, to the number of new cases of schistosomiasis, then this statement would be false. To say one thing is primarily responsible is to say that all other things combined are, in aggregate, not as powerful, not as influential, as that one thing. This is absolutely crucial to keep in mind with this argument.

Choice (D) directly contradicts this piece of evidence.
D. Over the past five years, the percentage of infectious disease cases caused by malaria was not significantly greater than the percentage of cases caused by schistosomiasis.
If about the same number of people had one or the other, then it would be patently false to say that only schistosomiasis was "primarily responsible for the overall increase in infectious disease cases."
This directly contradicts the evidence in the prompt. That's not the sign of a good strengthener!

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Re: Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are   [#permalink] 16 Jan 2018, 17:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Epidemiologist: In Brazil, schistosomiasis and malaria are

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.