It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 03:07

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2013
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 630 [9], given: 30

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
9
KUDOS
33
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

40% (01:18) correct 60% (01:17) wrong based on 905 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

KUDOS is always a good way to thank anyone.
It encourages someone to post more questions and also answers.

KUDOS Please if My post helps you in anyway. Your Kudos keep me alive

Kudos [?]: 630 [9], given: 30

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 115 [12], given: 3

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
12
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 115 [12], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 115 [1], given: 3

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
KUDOS

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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 115 [1], given: 3

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3323 [1], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
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
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.

Kudos [?]: 3323 [1], given: 22

Manager
Joined: 22 Jan 2013
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 28

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.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 28

Intern
Status: RusTinPeace
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 35

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

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 !

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

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

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

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.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 238

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 13

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

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 344

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 403

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
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

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 403

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10107

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2016, 00:49
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.

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1203

Kudos [?]: 870 [0], given: 75

Location: India
Re: In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2016, 03:06
Original Explanation:

This problem contains a paradox that you must explain: how could the number of cancer case increase dramatically, yet the percentage of people who know someone with cancer remain the same. One way is if most new cancer cases occur where people are more likely to already know someone with cancer. Then the number of cases would go up but there would be no new people added who know someone with cancer. Answer choice (B) maps out just that possibility and thus removes the paradox. In answer choice (A), cancer mortality does not relate to the given paradox so (A) is not correct. Answer choice (C) is the opposite of correct answer (B) and increases the paradox. If most of the new cancer cases occurred in places where few people knew someone with cancer, then you would really expect the 80% figure to go up. In (D) the word “some” immediately eliminates it as a possible choice because if only one of the new cases occurred in someone who had it before, it would have no effect on the paradox (remember some can mean anything from one to all). In (E), the likelihood of diagnosis does not affect the paradox at all. Answer is (B).
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Kudos [?]: 870 [0], given: 75

Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2016
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

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?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 109

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...

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 109

Director
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 897

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 865

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.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 865

Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2017
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 122

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

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 122

Director
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 897

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 865

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.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 865

In 1990, nearly 80% of people in the United States reported   [#permalink] 15 Sep 2017, 08:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by