Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.- Dec 15
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. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
13 Jan 2022, 02:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
66% (01:41) correct
34%
(01:57)
wrong
based on 319
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emergency rooms after suffering a scorpion bite in the southwestern United States died from the attack. Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4 percent. Clearly, the venom of the scorpion has become much more toxic to humans.
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?
(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984.
(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.
(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.
(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.
(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?
(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984.
(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.
(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.
(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.
(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.
gloomybison
Joined: 30 Mar 2021
Last visit: 02 Jan 2024
Posts: 227
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 93
Location: Turkey
Schools: Yale '26 (A) LBS '26 (WL) Booth '26 (A) Columbia CBS'26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A) Tuck '26 (A) Wharton '26 (D) Sloan '26 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
GPA: 3.69
Schools: Yale '26 (A) LBS '26 (WL) Booth '26 (A) Columbia CBS'26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A) Tuck '26 (A) Wharton '26 (D) Sloan '26 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
Posts: 227
Kudos:
202
13 Jan 2022, 04:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984.
Irrelevant
(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.
Actually, if there were innovation in the treatment it would strengthen the argument further because even with all those innovation you get a higher death rate.
(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.
We don't care who the victims are, this wouldn't weaken/strengthen in anyway
(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.
Correct
Now imagine that before when people got stung, they rushed to hospital, whereas now they know how to treat it at home so they are less likely to rush hospital and make it in the hospital records. Those who rush could be inexperienced or showing severe side effects etc.
Let's employ numbers; in 1984, 10000 people got stung; they went to hospital and only 200 (%2) died. Today 20000 people got stung, 15000 of them knew how to treat it at home, 5000 went to hospital and 200 (%4) died
Normally official numbers would tell that before 10000 got stung and 200 died whereas today 5000 got stung and 200 died. But these official numbers do not take into account those who didn't go to hospital since they treated themselves at home, warping the real numbers.
(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.
Irrelevant, but if anything it would strengthen the argument because it would imply that those who gut stung and survived can protect themselves by building up some kind of immunity whereas; most of those who died are dying because they don't have any immunity, making it more lethal because if you don't have immunity your chances to die are higher
Irrelevant
(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.
Actually, if there were innovation in the treatment it would strengthen the argument further because even with all those innovation you get a higher death rate.
(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.
We don't care who the victims are, this wouldn't weaken/strengthen in anyway
(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.
Correct
Now imagine that before when people got stung, they rushed to hospital, whereas now they know how to treat it at home so they are less likely to rush hospital and make it in the hospital records. Those who rush could be inexperienced or showing severe side effects etc.
Let's employ numbers; in 1984, 10000 people got stung; they went to hospital and only 200 (%2) died. Today 20000 people got stung, 15000 of them knew how to treat it at home, 5000 went to hospital and 200 (%4) died
Normally official numbers would tell that before 10000 got stung and 200 died whereas today 5000 got stung and 200 died. But these official numbers do not take into account those who didn't go to hospital since they treated themselves at home, warping the real numbers.
(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.
Irrelevant, but if anything it would strengthen the argument because it would imply that those who gut stung and survived can protect themselves by building up some kind of immunity whereas; most of those who died are dying because they don't have any immunity, making it more lethal because if you don't have immunity your chances to die are higher
SohGMAT2020
Joined: 04 May 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2023
Posts: 244
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 83
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '21 Ivey '21 Rotman '22 CBS '23 Harvard '23 HEC Montreal XLRI
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35 (Online)
GPA: 3.42
Products:
Schools: ISB '21 Ivey '21 Rotman '22 CBS '23 Harvard '23 HEC Montreal XLRI
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35 (Online)
Posts: 244
Kudos:
397
13 Jan 2022, 07:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emergency rooms after suffering a scorpion bite in the southwestern United States died from the attack. Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4 percent. Clearly, the venom of the scorpion has become much more toxic to humans.
So, we have to weaken the conclusion that the scorpion venom has become more toxic
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?
(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984. Incorrect : The scorpion population being stable gives no further information about the scorpion venom or why more % people died
(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984. Incorrect : Few innovation does not explain why more % people died. If everything remained same same % people should have died. So this option also does not affect the argument
(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion. Incorrect : In this argument we are only concerned about why more % people died. Which population is getting bitten So this option also does not affect the argument at all
(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early. Correct : If this option is true. Many people will treat at home and only serious cases may be treated at hospital. This trend can increase the death rate without the venom being more poisonous.
(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite. Incorrect : This may be true but in no way does it affect the argument.
IMO D is correct
So, we have to weaken the conclusion that the scorpion venom has become more toxic
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?
(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984. Incorrect : The scorpion population being stable gives no further information about the scorpion venom or why more % people died
(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984. Incorrect : Few innovation does not explain why more % people died. If everything remained same same % people should have died. So this option also does not affect the argument
(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion. Incorrect : In this argument we are only concerned about why more % people died. Which population is getting bitten So this option also does not affect the argument at all
(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early. Correct : If this option is true. Many people will treat at home and only serious cases may be treated at hospital. This trend can increase the death rate without the venom being more poisonous.
(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite. Incorrect : This may be true but in no way does it affect the argument.
IMO D is correct
