For a substantial price, several high-technology companies w

Using tech, one can know the risk to illnesses such as diabetes or heart disease.
But having a high-risk for a particular disease is no guarantee that one will acquire it
One can reduce the chances of falling prey to these illnesses through lifestyle choices anyway.

Conclusion: So finding out the amount of risk to illnesses is useless.

We need to weaken the argument. We need to say that finding out the risk to illnesses can be beneficial in some way. It can help us.

A) The author has assumed without reason that people are uncomfortable paying private companies for medical information that is so personal

The author has not assumed anything about whether people will want to pay or not for the tech. He just says why using the tech is irrelevant.

B)The author has underestimated the dangers associated with genetically determined diseases.

Not true. The author is not saying that the diseases are mild and should be ignored.

C) Knowing that one is at risk for a certain illness allows one the opportunity to modify one’s lifestyle accordingly.

Correct. This is a weakness of author's argument. He says knowing the risk is useless. But if knowing the risks can help people alter their lifestyle and take preemptive measures, that could be a reason in favour of finding out the amount of risk to illnesses.

D) The author assumes that people who are at risk for certain illness will take steps to reduce the risk.

This is not a weakness of his argument. The author does not assume anything about what people will do if they find out their risk. He says that using tech to find your risk is useless.

E) The cost of the DNA analysis is assumed to be too high for the vast majority of the population

No such assumption is made. Cost, whether high or low, is irrelevant. The author only talks about whether using tech is useful.

Answer (C)
_________________

C is the only contender: Knowing that one is at risk for a certain illness allows one the opportunity to modify one’s lifestyle accordingly.

A) The author has assumed without reason that people are uncomfortable paying private companies for medical information that is so personal- talking about paying & not about risks

B)The author has underestimated the dangers associated with genetically determined diseases- (out of scope)

C) Knowing that one is at risk for a certain illness allows one the opportunity to modify one’s lifestyle accordingly.

D) The author assumes that people who are at risk for certain illness will take steps to reduce the risk- the conclusion mainly focuses on lifestyle

E) The cost of the DNA analysis is assumed to be too high for the vast majority of the population- Nowhere talking about the conclusion- i.e high risk profile patient cannot do anythng

The option C says - "Knowing that one is at risk for a certain illness allows one the opportunity to modify one’s lifestyle accordingly". It only talks only about modifying the lifestyle and says nothing about 'reducing the chances of falling prey to those illnesses'. Modifying the lifestyle is definitely possible, but assuming that these modifications reduce the risk of falling prey to the illnesses is an improper assumption. So, for this reason, I felt option C was not the correct option (in the sense, it was not the weakness in the argument, as it sounds reasonable). Whereas in option D - the author assumes that people who are at risk for certain illnesses will take steps to reduce the risk - I felt this was an improper assumption and therefore the weakness in this argument. (E.g.: Smoking increases the risk of cancer and in spite of this many people continue to smoke).

The knowledge of risk definitely allows the opportunity to modify the lifestyle, however, does one take up this opportunity is a different question. Assuming that people at risk WILL take steps to reduce the risk is not always true.

Please let me know if I am missing something in my analysis

Can we please discuss options C and D here. Although I picked C, can we discard option D as a weakness to the argument presented above.

Thanks.

My 2 cents:

The author assumes that the test is not required since genetically acquired diseases could be overcome by leading a healthy life style.

Option D states that:
The author assumes that people who are at risk for certain illness will take steps to reduce the risk.

While the argument states that:
one can reduce the chances of falling prey to these illnesses through lifestyle choices anyway.

Inline with prevention is better than cure

It may or maybe not be possible that one will be aware about his/her health state and likelihood to acquire this disease. Due to healthy lifestyle, he/she is less likely to fall prey. Option D somehow talks about people who are aware that they stand a risk. Also I am not comfortable when they state "risk for certain illness"

We need to find a weakness in the argument. What if the tests are really useful? If a person finds out that they are at risk from the test, he/she will take steps to avoid the risk.

Option C find that loophole and hence it is the correct answer which points out the weakness

I answered D but after thinking through it, C is the most logical. The way I see it that although D may be a logical conclusion, it does not expose the weakness in the argument. The conclusion of the argument says test is not useful because test ≠ reduced risk. If you can prove test = reduced risk, then that is the strongest argument against the conclusion. C =you need to know your risk (the test) to modify your lifestyle (reduce risk) (test = reduced risk). We did it! Answer is C.

How does C define the weakness ?? Why is D wrong??

what is the question here?so we have to weaken the argument?or do we have to state the weakness in the argument?also,why is d not the right answer?

HI GMATNinja, nightblade354, VeritasKarishma,

I was down to C & D. Can you please explain how to eliminate D? How C would weaken?
_________________

I do not think an official test will have this question. Nevertheless, this question is good enough to practice gmat patterns. Here, both D and E are out of scope because these options do not concern with the central argument which is all about DNA analysis, illness, and lifestyle choice => C must be the answer.

We need to determine if predetermining the probability of developing a disease will be beneficial for people or not.
A- talks about price that is of least importance here.
B- Doesn't matter whether the author has underestimated or overestimated the dangers. Out of scope
C- Presents a weakness to the author's argument. If one gets to know that he/she has a risk of developing a particular disease and therefore modifies his/her lifestyle accordingly, the information provided by the high tech companies if definitely beneficial. - CORRECT
D- No, this is not what the author assumes. Rather, the author is of the view that the information is insignificant.
E- talks about cost that is of least importance here.
Answer - C

kudos please

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________