GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 13:19

### 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

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

# In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2013
Posts: 40
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Information Technology (Telecommunications)
In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2013, 00:40
12
54
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (01:45) correct 57% (01:56) wrong based on 1054 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer. In 2010, that percentage remained unchanged yet cancer incidence rates in the population increased by over 40% from 1990 to 2010.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain how the percentage of people who knew someone with cancer could have remained unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer?

A. Improved treatment options dramatically reduced cancer mortality rates from 1990 to 2010.

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.

C. Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.

D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.

E. Because of dramatic technological improvements in diagnostic tools from 1990 to 2010, cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in 2010 than in 1990.
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 39
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2013, 02:50
15
5
Fact1 : 1990- nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer
Fact2 : 2010- nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer
Fact3 : cancer incidence rates in the population increased by over 40% from 1990 to 2010.

Now a way the percentage of people who knew someone with cancer could have remained unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer is that the cases of new cancer are known to people who already know somebody with cancer.
This is the scenario in Choice B as in a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.

A. Improved treatment options dramatically reduced cancer mortality rates from 1990 to 2010.
Incorrect : Irrelevant

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.
Correct: In a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.

C. Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.
Incorrect: This will increase the people who know a cancer patient.

D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.
Incorrect as talks about some of the cancer cases while the increase is around 40%.

E. Because of dramatic technological improvements in diagnostic tools from 1990 to 2010, cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in 2010 than in 1990.
Incorrect : Doesn’t help in knowing why percentage people knowing cancer patient haven’t changed.
_________________
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2013
Posts: 36
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 04:41
ssbisht wrote:
Fact1 : 1990- nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer
Fact2 : 2010- nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer
Fact3 : cancer incidence rates in the population increased by over 40% from 1990 to 2010.

Now a way the percentage of people who knew someone with cancer could have remained unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer is that the cases of new cancer are known to people who already know somebody with cancer.
This is the scenario in Choice B as in a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.

A. Improved treatment options dramatically reduced cancer mortality rates from 1990 to 2010.
Incorrect : Irrelevant

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.
Correct: In a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.

C. Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.
Incorrect: This will increase the people who know a cancer patient.

D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.
Incorrect as talks about some of the cancer cases while the increase is around 40%.

E. Because of dramatic technological improvements in diagnostic tools from 1990 to 2010, cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in 2010 than in 1990.
Incorrect : Doesn’t help in knowing why percentage people knowing cancer patient haven’t changed.

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.
Correct: In a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.

I believe we cannot come to the conclusion that the total number of people one knows will remain common in densely populated areas.

and in C
If a person in isolated area is diagnosed with cancer then no person will get to know about this incident and the 80 percent will remail common

and in D.
If the same person is diagnosed with multiple cancers then the chances are that the total number of people suffering with cancer will remail unchanged and the cancer incidence will increase.

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 39
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2013, 10:10
1

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.
Correct: In a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.

I believe we cannot come to the conclusion that the total number of people one knows will remain common in densely populated areas.

and in C
If a person in isolated area is diagnosed with cancer then no person will get to know about this incident and the 80 percent will remail common

and in D.
If the same person is diagnosed with multiple cancers then the chances are that the total number of people suffering with cancer will remail unchanged and the cancer incidence will increase.

See my logic in bold:

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.
Correct: In a densely populated urban center a lot of people will be knowing each other and hence number of people who knows many cancer patients will be common.
I believe we cannot come to the conclusion that the total number of people one knows will remain common in densely populated areas.

If you read choice B carefully it says - in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.
Now in a densely populated area with high cancer rates chances of a person knowing somebody suffering with cancer should be already very high.

and in C
If a person in isolated area is diagnosed with cancer then no person will get to know about this incident and the 80 percent will remail common

The complete sentence in choice C is - Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.
If little or no cancer had been present before than any new cancer case is bound to increase the number of people who knows someone suffering from cancer.

and in D.
If the same person is diagnosed with multiple cancers then the chances are that the total number of people suffering with cancer will remain unchanged and the cancer incidence will increase.

If same person is diagnosed with multiple cancers it will still count as one cancer case.
Cancer incidence rates in population means the number of people with reported cancer in the population.

The author has tried to put a scenerio here and asked us to choose the best choice.
I beleive above point will help to make it clear to you.

Thanks
_________________
Intern
Status: RusTinPeace
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 30
WE: Sales (Commercial Banking)
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2013, 01:51
i ended up answering (C). However i do understand now that the answer is (B). Good question indeed !
SVP
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1569
Concentration: Finance
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2014, 07:48
Nice question
Stuck between B and D

Any ideas?

Pqhai shed some light over here buddy

Cheers
J
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 136
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2015, 05:05
thelosthippie wrote:
In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer. In 2010, that percentage remained unchanged yet cancer incidence rates in the population increased by over 40% from 1990 to 2010.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain how the percentage of people who knew someone with cancer could have remained unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer?

A. Improved treatment options dramatically reduced cancer mortality rates from 1990 to 2010.

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.

C. Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.

D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.

E. Because of dramatic technological improvements in diagnostic tools from 1990 to 2010, cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in 2010 than in 1990.

Intially choosen C but now understood why B is correct answer.
Good question.
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 180
In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2015, 11:06
thelosthippie wrote:
In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer. In 2010, that percentage remained unchanged yet cancer incidence rates in the population increased by over 40% from 1990 to 2010.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain how the percentage of people who knew someone with cancer could have remained unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer?

A. Improved treatment options dramatically reduced cancer mortality rates from 1990 to 2010.

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.

C. Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.

D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.

E. Because of dramatic technological improvements in diagnostic tools from 1990 to 2010, cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in 2010 than in 1990.

hi mikemcgarry

This is an paradox question. according to option C we can say cancer has increased in isolated geographical areas. so we can say very less people know each other. so over all number of cancer patients has increased but still the % is same. could you please clarify this.

Regards
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 283
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2015, 14:01
1
PathFinder007 wrote:
thelosthippie wrote:
In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer. In 2010, that percentage remained unchanged yet cancer incidence rates in the population increased by over 40% from 1990 to 2010.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain how the percentage of people who knew someone with cancer could have remained unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer?

A. Improved treatment options dramatically reduced cancer mortality rates from 1990 to 2010.

B. From 1990 to 2010, most new cases of cancer occurred in densely populated urban centers with previously high cancer rates.

C. Many of the new cancer cases from 1990 to 2010 occurred in geographically isolated regions where little or no cancer had been present before.

D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.

E. Because of dramatic technological improvements in diagnostic tools from 1990 to 2010, cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in 2010 than in 1990.

hi mikemcgarry

This is an paradox question. according to option C we can say cancer has increased in isolated geographical areas. so we can say very less people know each other. so over all number of cancer patients has increased but still the % is same. could you please clarify this.

Regards

Option C states that there is no history of cancer in the stated geographically isolated regions.
So if in such areas someone develops cancer, then the local people there will come to know about cancer.So, the overall percentage should be more than 80% because new set of people have been added to the category of people who know someone with cancer.But that will be against the premise which states that the percentage remained steady at 80%.

I DONOT MIND KUODS
_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1093
Location: India
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2016, 03:06
Original Explanation:

Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 5
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2016, 03:58

IS IT NECESSARILY TRUE THAT IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2861
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2017, 23:41
1
1Narrative wrote:

IS IT NECESSARILY TRUE THAT IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON?

This is not an inference type question, hence the condition "necessarily true" does not need to be satisfied. But it could possibly be the case that "IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON". Hence option B could be an explanation of the discrepancy.

You are asked to find the best explanation among the given options, and option B does so the best. D could be an explanation, but it is unlikely that the number of patients who are diagnosed with cancer and had already had some other form of cancer is as high as 40% of the existing cancer patients. "SOME of the new cancer cases occurred.... " does not justify such high percentage. In absence of B, D could be the answer.
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 65
GPA: 3.92
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2017, 23:06
D. From 1990 to 2010, some of the new cancer cases occurred in people who had previously been diagnosed with another form of cancer.

Whenever two answers seem like they could be correct (B and D), I look if one of the potential answers uses a word like some. If so, I go with the other...
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2017, 20:22
this question focuses on testing the ability to sense the logic behind the explanation. For my money, the question is really interesting.
Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2017
Posts: 17
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V41
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2017, 05:42
Hmm I was torn between B and D, and decided to go with B.

D sounds ok, but only some of the newly diagnosed cancer happened to people who already had some other form of cancer.
B is better per network theory - high frequency in densely populated area means there already were a lot of people who knew someone with cancer.

Best CR decision I've made today so far XD
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2017, 08:15
boiled down to B and D.
C is wrong because it makes the situation more complex.
D is out b/c of "some" and D does not relate anything to people who know cancer patients.
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 219
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2018, 01:18
sayantanc2k wrote:
1Narrative wrote:

IS IT NECESSARILY TRUE THAT IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON?

This is not an inference type question, hence the condition "necessarily true" does not need to be satisfied. But it could possibly be the case that "IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON". Hence option B could be an explanation of the discrepancy.

You are asked to find the best explanation among the given options, and option B does so the best. D could be an explanation, but it is unlikely that the number of patients who are diagnosed with cancer and had already had some other form of cancer is as high as 40% of the existing cancer patients. "SOME of the new cancer cases occurred.... " does not justify such high percentage. In absence of B, D could be the answer.

Hi sayantanc2k, Nevernevergiveup,

I understood why other options are incorrect. I marked C as OA and understood why C is wrong. But, in B from 1990-2010, within this 20 years the cancer incidents increased by 40%. In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported that they knew someone who had been diagnosed with cancer. So, in a IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER MAY BE A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOWS EACH OTHER, BUT SINCE THE CANCER INCIDENTS INCREASED BY 40%, HOW CAN WE SAY THAT PEOPLE KNOW THE NEW CASES AS WELL, WHO ARE Diagnosed WITH CANCER. Since 80% of the US people know people who are diagnosed with cancer is constant since 1990, then even when the the cancer incidents increased, how come the percentage ie. 80 % people know people who are diagnosed with cancer? Kindly help me to understand.
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Posts: 9
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2019, 19:14
Clearly the option B. Easy reasoning. Was confused whether if there was any underlying twist i was missing, but POE helped to overcome it.
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Posts: 60
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2019, 05:45
sayantanc2k wrote:
1Narrative wrote:

IS IT NECESSARILY TRUE THAT IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON?

This is not an inference type question, hence the condition "necessarily true" does not need to be satisfied. But it could possibly be the case that "IN A DENSELY POPULATED URBAN CENTER A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL KNOW EACH OTHER AND HENCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW MANY CANCER PATIENTS WILL BE COMMON". Hence option B could be an explanation of the discrepancy.

You are asked to find the best explanation among the given options, and option B does so the best. D could be an explanation, but it is unlikely that the number of patients who are diagnosed with cancer and had already had some other form of cancer is as high as 40% of the existing cancer patients. "SOME of the new cancer cases occurred.... " does not justify such high percentage. In absence of B, D could be the answer.

Here why are we not assuming that if no.of cases increase in city then the percentage of people knowing cancer patients would also go up.??..please guide.
Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2013
Posts: 1
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2019, 14:38
this is too easy for a 700 level qs

Posted from my mobile device
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported   [#permalink] 03 Apr 2019, 14:38

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by