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.
Sep 0907:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway- Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
06 Sep 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
75% (01:38) correct
25%
(02:19)
wrong
based on 59
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract a certain disease is significantly lower than the rate at which inhabitants of City Y contract the disease. So if a couple originally from City Y relocates to City X and raises a family there, their children will be significantly less likely to contract this disease than they would have been if the
family had remained in City Y.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. The rate at which inhabitants of City X contract the disease will increase as the overall population of City X increases.
B. In contrast to City Y, City X is characterized by an abundance of environmental factors that tend to inhibit the occurrence of the disease.
C. 23% of those inhabitants of City Y who move to City X live beyond the average life span of native inhabitants of City X.
D. Over the last 2 decades, the incidence of the disease has decreased in City Y but has remained unchanged in City X.
E. Studies indicate that the incidence of the disease among inhabitants of City X who move to City Y is roughly equal to that of inhabitants of City X who remain in CityX.
family had remained in City Y.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. The rate at which inhabitants of City X contract the disease will increase as the overall population of City X increases.
B. In contrast to City Y, City X is characterized by an abundance of environmental factors that tend to inhibit the occurrence of the disease.
C. 23% of those inhabitants of City Y who move to City X live beyond the average life span of native inhabitants of City X.
D. Over the last 2 decades, the incidence of the disease has decreased in City Y but has remained unchanged in City X.
E. Studies indicate that the incidence of the disease among inhabitants of City X who move to City Y is roughly equal to that of inhabitants of City X who remain in CityX.
07 Sep 2026, 00:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
A: Says disease in X may increase with population → weakens the conclusion.
B: X has environmental factors that prevent the disease → directly explains why moving to X lowers the children's risk.
C: Living longer does not show that X reduces disease risk.
D: Different disease trends over time don't explain why moving to X would help.
E: E says people from X who move to Y have a disease rate similar to people who remain in X.
That actually suggests that moving to Y doesn't make much difference.
So it doesn't strongly support the idea that the environment of the city determines the disease rate.
Correct Answer- B
B: X has environmental factors that prevent the disease → directly explains why moving to X lowers the children's risk.
C: Living longer does not show that X reduces disease risk.
D: Different disease trends over time don't explain why moving to X would help.
E: E says people from X who move to Y have a disease rate similar to people who remain in X.
That actually suggests that moving to Y doesn't make much difference.
So it doesn't strongly support the idea that the environment of the city determines the disease rate.
Correct Answer- B
07 Sep 2026, 03:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: So, if a couple from City Y relocates to City X and raises a family there, their children will be significantly less likely to contract the disease than if they had stayed in City Y.
For this conclusion to hold, the low disease rate in City X must be driven by environmental/location-based factors (nurture/place) rather than genetic/inherent factors unique to native residents of City X (nature). If the native residents of City X are simply genetically immune, moving a family from City Y to City X will not protect their children.
Answer choice B does exactly that
For this conclusion to hold, the low disease rate in City X must be driven by environmental/location-based factors (nurture/place) rather than genetic/inherent factors unique to native residents of City X (nature). If the native residents of City X are simply genetically immune, moving a family from City Y to City X will not protect their children.
Answer choice B does exactly that
