In November of last year, a rare strain (H4N2v) of influenza was first

B- This helps us to evaluate the argument whether the detected cases of virus are new or they are untreated cases which are getting added to the new cases. Suppose, in January-March, the cases were 100 but only 50 of them were treated. In April-June, 100 new cases were detected but from the previous quarter 50 cases were untreated so total cases which are untreated are 150. If this is the cases then it would weaken the argument otherwise strengthen.


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The flaw in the given argument is a classic Critical Reasoning "these two things are similar, but not the same" piece of wordplay. The premises are about the number of H4N2v cases that doctors treated each month, while the conclusion talks about the number of people who contracted the virus. Can someone contract a virus without being treated for it? Of course. That, then constitutes a gap in logic: to strengthen the argument, you would want to show that the number of treatments is very similar to the number of cases, and to weaken it you would want to show the opposite, that the two numbers can vary widely.

Here the question asks which piece of information would be most useful to have, and so you want to find an answer that will help you better understand whether the number of treatments is a valid predictor of the number of cases that people contracted. Only answer choice B links the two, so B is the correct answer.

You can easily come down to B and D.

The big thing to note here is the language shift from premise to conclusion.

The conclusion: more people are contracting the disease each month

The premise: more people are being treated each month

Imagine that in the first month, 10,000 people have contracted the disease. If that's the case, it's possible that the disease hasn't been spreading at all - it's just that more and more of the initial 10,000 are being treated each month. But if exactly 6000 have contracted the disease initially, and all of those people are getting treated, then we know that more people are getting sick each month, because the number of people treated has increased. So the key piece of info is the number of untreated cases. This is captured in B


Note that D is not talking about untreated cases. It's discussing whether the early cases are continuing to be treated later. But the length of treatment isn't the important variable here. It's whether there are many untreated cases.

mikemcgarry: Dear Mike, Hope you are doing great. Can you please help me understand why option D is wrong? See, I undertand the logic behind option B. The argument talks about total people that contracted the disease. And people contracting = Treated + Untreated. So in a way option B is very dear to the argument because it suggests that despite the total increase in treated patients, the total number of cases can still be low in the succeeding month. For example:
1. Month 1: 600(Treated) 400(untreated) : 1000 cases (Total)
2. Month 2: 700(Treated) 200(Untreated) : 900 cases (Total)
3. Month 3: 800(Treated) 50(Untreated) : 850 cases (Total)

So in a way, if there are untreated cases, the argument get severely undermined. BUT My QUESTION IS THAT: Isn't option D an equally good contender?

What if a large majority of people who were treated in Month 1 are again treated in month 2, would n't that point to the fact that the figure presented in the Question are DOUBTFUL. For example:
Month 1 : 300 people treated
Month 2: 450 people treated( if 250 were from first month itself, then it does ultimately make us doubt that figures are giving an overestimation) In fact, if we consider this statement, it sounds very logical to conclude that the total population contracting the disease has actually declined.

My point is that at the end of the day, we need to find something that weekens the validity of the statement. Apparently, I see that happening in both the situations. Can you share some thoughts on how to handle this ?

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

The flaw in the given argument is a classic Critical Reasoning "these two things are similar, but not the same" piece of wordplay. The premises are about the number of H4N2v cases that doctors treated each month, while the conclusion talks about the number of people who contracted the virus. Can someone contract a virus without being treated for it? Of course. That, then constitutes a gap in logic: to strengthen the argument, you would want to show that the number of treatments is very similar to the number of cases, and to weaken it you would want to show the opposite, that the two numbers can vary widely.

Here the question asks which piece of information would be most useful to have, and so you want to find an answer that will help you better understand whether the number of treatments is a valid predictor of the number of cases that people contracted. Only answer choice B links the two, so B is the correct answer.

H4N2v was diagnosed in Nov.
From Jan-March 6000 cases/month were treated.
In April-June 8500 cases/month were treated.
In July, 9000 cases were treated.

Conclusion: An increasing number of people contract the H4N2v strain of the flu each month.

The premises talk about the cases that were treated. What if the number of cases has been the same, say 10,000 every month but now more people are coming to the doctor because of increased awareness? So we need to know the number of untreated cases too. Hence option (B) is correct.
As for option (D):

(D) Are any of the patients who were treated for H4N2v in the April-June period still being treated for the virus this month?

This should be irrelevant. We are likely to allocate a treatment to the month in which it begins. One wouldn't double-count it if it continues next month too. Else, the figures won't make much sense.

Answer (B)

Thought D was the answer as the conclusion is that an increasing number of people are contracting the disease
It is possible that the treatment takes more than a month , what if all the 8500 patients from June were continuing their treatment last month as well and only 500 new patients have contracted the disease in the last month

National Health Minister: In November of last year, a rare strain (H4N2v) of influenza was first diagnosed in our country. Since that time, our Centre for Disease Control has surveying doctors to track the virus’s progress. For the months of January-March, doctors treated an average of 6,000 cases per month, and then for the months April-June, that figure had risen to 8,500 diseases per month. This past month, the figure surpassed 9,000. We can conclude, then, that an increasing number of people contract the H4N2v strain of the flu each month.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the health minister’s argument?

(A)Have treatments for the H4N2v virus been successful in curing patients of the ailment?
Yes -> but still we don't know, how long it takes to cure. Therefore we can't evaluate the argument.
(B)How many incidences of the H4N2v virus have gone untreated each month?
All -> So, it started with 2500 cases, then decreased to 500 new cases....Can't say it is spreading
None -> each month we have new cases -> disease is spreading
(C)Is the H4N2v strain of the flu more contagious than more-common strains of the flu? out of scope
(D)Are any of the patients who were treated for H4N2v in the April-June period still being treated for the virus this month?
lets take two extremes for this one:
None of patients -> means we have 9000 more cases -> no. of patients increasing
All of patients -> still we have 500 more incidents -> disease is spreading
(E)Has the number of diagnosed cases of H4N2v been increasing in neighboring countries? Out of scope

+B.
Conc: An increasing number of people contract the H4N2v strain of the flu each month.
What if it is the previous month patients that have not been diagnosed successfully. We need the numbers.
For example if out of 6000, 5000 patients are the ones still having the disease in that case the no increased 3500. Which is less than the 1st month.

This is a low quality question imo.

D is the only option that could either strengthen or weaken the argument.

We know from the initial statement that more people got treated. Hence, the correct statement should show whether there truly was an increase in infected people or not.

If D tell us that only few people got treated for multiple months: There probably was a significant increase in infections.

If D tells us that many people got treated for multiple months: The number of infections probably remained fairly constant.


Now, let's look at B:

If B tells us that there are many untreated infections: The number of infections increased

If B tells us that there were few untreated infections: The number of infections still increased because this is given in the initial statement.

Hence, B is not the best option to evaluate this argument imo as the conclusion will be the same regardless of what we learn based on answer B.


Can anyone get behind this reasoning?

I was wondering why a is incorrect and b is correct.Any one pls explain.
(A) Have treatments for the H4N2v virus been successful in curing patients of the ailment?
yes-treatments are successful so contracted the disease.(Strengh)
no-treatments are unsuccessful which means many not contracted disease.(weaken)
(B) How many incidences of the H4N2v virus have gone untreated each month?
It takes only about treated / untreated which may not contract the disease altogether

someone kindly explain why A is incorrect

because we are given 6000 cases per month on average have been treated by the doctors in JFM, what if they are not been cured totally than they will be visiting the doctors again or what if this disease require monthly visits to doctor for 1 year than this option will be helpful in evaluating the argument.


Kindly throw some light on my line of reasoning.

Can anyone please explain why A is incorrect?

Hi....

i had rejected B on the following basis:

if there is an untreated case, then no one wd know about this case. eg: the patient never went to a doctor.

can you explain the flaw in my logic?

thanks

If you notice there is a gap in the reasoning of the argument. The premise says sth about the treated cases, while the conclusion discusses 'the number of people contract h4n2v'. So we can infer a little bit about the other group, which is the untreated one (total ppl contract = treated + untreated)

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the health minister’s argument?

(A)Have treatments for the H4N2v virus been successful in curing patients of the ailment? => A is wrong simply because it's out of cope, what are we evaluating here? We're evaluating the total numbers of ppl contracting the flu are increasing month-wise, on the basis of the treated case from Jan-Sep. Whether the treatment of the virus is successful in curing the same does not affect the conclusion one bit. If you're picking this answer I think you've attacked the premise instead of the conclusion
(B)How many incidences of the H4N2v virus have gone untreated each month? => this says something about the other group so i might leave it alone for now
(C)Is the H4N2v strain of the flu more contagious than more-common strains of the flu? =>Whether the flu is more contagious than other does not affect the conclusion that 'the number of people contract h4n2v is increasing'
(D)Are any of the patients who were treated for H4N2v in the April-June period still being treated for the virus this month? => this is a tempting choice, the 'any of X' structure in CR is pretty suspicious to me (since I made a lot of mistake picking this answer choice). I'll attach a similar 700 level question below fyi. This makes sense but the first one makes even more sense to me, since the stem ask 'most useful', hence they could give us 2 3 make-sense and our job is to find the most sensical one right
In B, for example:
J: Treated: 6000, untreated: 1000, total: 7000
F: Treated: 6000, untreated: 600, total: 6600
2 data points are enough to tell us that the total number is not increasing
(E)Has the number of diagnosed cases of H4N2v been increasing in neighboring countries? => dont care about the neighboring countries

Here is another Q with the "any of X" (use with caution) - this is from OG - hope it helps
Following several years of declining advertising sales, the Greenvile Times reorganized its advertising sales force. Before reorganization, the sales force was organized geographically, with some sales representatives concentrating on city-center businesses and others concentrating on different outlying regions. The reorganization attempted to increase the sales representatives' knowledge of clients' business by having each sales representative deal with only one type of industry or of retailing. After the reorganization, revenue from advertising sales increased.
In assessing whether the improvement in advertising sales can properly be attributed to the reorganization, it would be most helpful to find out which of the following?
(A) What proportion of the total revenue of the Greenvile Times is generated by advertising sales?
(B) Has the circulation of the Greenvile Times increased substantially in the last two years?
(C) Among all types of industry and retailing that use the Greenvile Times as an advertising vehicle, which type accounts for the largest proportion of the newspaper's advertising sales?
(D) Do any clients of the sales representatives of the Greenvile Times have a standing order with the Times for a fixed amount of advertising per month?
(E) Among the advertisers in the Greenvile Times are there more types of retail business or more types of industrial business?

Hi Bunuel

Veritas official solution does not explain why A is wrong.
Here is my understanding:
If the treatments are successful and the number of patients visiting the doctors are still increasing, it would mean that the cases are new and hence help evaluate the argument.
Could you please explain why this is wrong?

Thanks in advance!

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja i am confused between B and D...please explain!