In Rubaria, excellent health care is available to virtually the entire

Question

In Rubaria, excellent health care is available to virtually the entire population, whereas very few people in Terland receive adequate medical care. Yet, although the death rate for most diseases is higher in Terland than in Rubaria, the percentage of the male population that dies from prostate cancer is significantly higher in Rubaria than in Terland.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disparity between the prostate cancer death rate in Rubaria and Terland?

(A) Effective treatment of prostate cancer in its early stages generally requires medical techniques available in Rubaria but not in Terland.

(B) Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland.

(C) Being in poor general health does not increase one’s risk of developing prostate cancer.

(D) It is possible to decrease one’s risk of getting prostate cancer by eating certain kinds of foods, and such foods are more readily available in Rubaria than in Terland.

(E) Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do.

Pronz · Accepted Answer

This problem is an exact analogue of the real-world situation with such maladies as heart disease and breast/prostate cancer, which generally strike older individuals. There are often strikingly low rates of death from those maladies in countries with otherwise horrible public health (such as sub-Saharan African countries). This isn't due to better prostate/heart/breast health in those countries, though; it's simply because most people in those countries don't live anywhere near long enough to get these problems in the first place. 
You need to pick a choice that actually points out a salient difference, regarding prostate cancer, between the two countries. Furthermore, that difference must register in the correct direction: i.e., the evidence must indicate that prostate cancer is LESS likely to be found in Terland.

Choice (C) does no such thing. In fact, choice (C) is perfectly neutral, giving absolutely no reason to suspect different levels of prostate cancer in the two countries. (First, "does not increase one's risk" implies equality of risk, not a disparity in either direction. Second, this statement has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on differences between the two countries mentioned in the problem.)

Choice (B), on the other hand, mentions a factor that is DIRECTLY responsible for the relatively low rate of prostate cancer in Terland. Namely, if people in Terland don't live long enough to GET prostate cancer in the first place, then you aren't going to see a lot of prostate cancer there.

D. This should ideally mean people died of cancer lesser in Rubaria than in Terland.

Please kudo if you like!

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's look at each side of the disparity discussed in the passage.

On one hand, we know that "In Rubaria, excellent health care is available to virtually the entire population, whereas very few people in Terland receive adequate medical care." In addition, "the death rate for most diseases is higher in Terland than in Rubaria." This makes sense so far -- Rubaria has excellent healthcare and a lower death rate for most diseases, while Terland has inadequate healthcare and a higher death rate for most diseases.

And here is the other side of the disparity: "the percentage of the male population that dies from prostate cancer is significantly higher in Rubaria than in Terland." So, while "the death rate for most diseases is higher in Terland than in Rubaria," the  opposite  is true for prostate cancer.

Our task is to find an answer choice that explains why a higher percentage of men in Rubaria die of prostate cancer, despite the fact they they receive much better healthcare than the men in Terland.

Let's first look at (B):
 
This tells us that men with prostate cancer are generally very old -- older, in fact, than men are expected to live in Terland. In other words, most men in Terland have  already died off  for some other reason before they could develop prostate cancer. In Rubaria, on the other hand, men live to a ripe old age and then develop prostate cancer. This explains why a higher percentage of Rubarian men in die of prostate cancer than do Terlandian men -- they live long enough to contract the disease. Not a very cheerful explanation, but it does explain the disparity in the passage. (B) is the correct answer.

Now look at (E):
 
This answer choice tells us that men who use the excellent healthcare system in Rubaria have a lower death rate than the men who do not use the healthcare system. This makes sense: the men who receive treatment have better outcomes.

However, we are trying to figure out why the death rate is lower in Terland, a place that does  not  have a great healthcare system -- in other words, why men who do  not  receive adequate treatment somehow have better outcomes (measured by percentage of men who die of prostate cancer). This answer choice does not explain the disparity at all, so eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

gluon · Answer

I am going with  B .

People in Rubaria grow old and then die of prostate cancer. People in Terland never get the chance to grow that old owing to the bad health care.

eyunni · Answer

I will go for (E). Other than (B), all other choices are not close. 

(E): Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is  significantly higher  for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do

Conclusion:
the percentage of the male population that dies from prostate cancer is  significantly higher  in Rubaria than in Terland.

sztiwari · Answer

It should be B. My first choice was E but looking deeply E only compares among the men from one place ; iit does not compare both the places.

alrussell · Answer

It's clearly B. E tells us nothing about the second state

GMATBLACKBELT · Answer

My initial answer was E, but B makes more sense thx gluon.

varundixitmro2512 · Answer

I am not convinced with B as it did not mention about the people living in Rubaria.It talks about all the people who are suffering from prostate cancer.

If they had mentioned explicitly that most of the people living in rubaria having prostate cancer are older....... then B would be the correct OA

Therefore I think that E should be the answer.

Please provide your comments

toan3390 · Answer

I think it can't be E because of improper comparison. the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do, so it means that one group of people will have higher death rate by prostate cancer in Rubaria. what about comparisons with people in Terland who could not even get access to the adequate medical health? E has no information about that. 
The trap here is generally understood as Rubaria has better health care, and few people die of diseases than Terland and Rubaria has more people die of prostate cancer. Why?Answer B is correct because it explains why more people die of prostate cancer in Rubaria and interterestingly that these people are even older than the average expectancy life.

chesstitans · Answer

there is a trick here, "percentage of the male population" not percentage of male patients. => B. Otherwise, none of options are satisfied.

achandak · Answer

I am not convinced with B as it did not mention about the people living in Rubaria.It talks about all the people who are suffering from prostate cancer.

Can anyone please explain why B is Right with the appropriate reason.

As I did eleminate option B on the basis of above understanding, I did choose option C as answer.

arvind910619 · Answer

Hi ,
Please read this excellent answer in earlier post

sayan640 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   mikemcgarry   GMATNinja

Can you please throw some light on option B and E ?

sssanskaar · Answer

Was stuck between B and E.

E - illogical comparison. We need a comparison between male pollution of city R and that of city T. In this option, we are provided with the comparison between male populations of city R who avail health care service and those who don't.

B - CORRECT Most people who have prostate cancer are really old in city T. So there is a possibility that such people might die because of the other reasons related to old age issues. The conclusion strictly asks us to focus on the deaths caused by Prostate Cancer. This option is not an amazing one, but by POE at least we can remove the other options.

I hope that I was able to help in some way

Naman_Agrawal · Answer

When we are talking about the death rate, I hope we are considering only the people who have that disease. In that scenario how "A" explains the paradox?

Can someone please elaborate

Engineer1 · Answer

GMATNinja , I did select B after being confused between B and E. The language if B is confusing.  Most men who have prostate cancer  in Rubaria  are older than the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland.  It may be obvious to others but it is not to me. Without the rephrasing I mentioned, it is unclear whether or not most men in Rubaria or Terland who have prostate cancer are the ones that are alive beyond Terland's avg. life expectancy. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Sonia2023 · Answer

KarishmaB - Can you please throw light on Choice B?

I picked choice B. But I was confused between E and B but then rejected E because we had to take an assumption here that "MOST MEN DO NOT TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE HEATLHCARE SYSTEM AND THEREFORE DEATH RATE IS HIGHER IN RUBARIA" AND also because it doesn't tell me why Terland has a lower death rate despite death rate being higher for other diseases.

But B says "Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland". Assuming that avg life expectancy if 60 years and that people who are more than 60 years old have prostate cancer but then how can we assume that they will not die because of prostate cancer but because of other diseases (While the passage suggests that " Yet, although the death rate for most diseases is higher in Terland than in Rubaria" indicating that death rate due to other diseases is quite higher in Terland than Rubaria but how can we assume that PS patients die of other diseases. Aren't we making a big leap in terms of assuming that population dies of other diseases than prostate cancer?"

Are there any other questions in which we have to make such leaps?

Thank you

KarishmaB · Answer

R - excellent health care to all
T - adequate health care to few
Death rate for most diseases is higher in T than in R (Expected)
% of the male population that dies from prostate cancer is significantly higher in R than in T (Unexpected)

Why are the figures reverse for prostate cancer? Why are they worse for R than for T?

(A) Effective treatment of prostate cancer in its early stages generally requires medical techniques available in Rubaria but not in Terland.

As per this, R's figures should be better then. It has effective treatment for this disease.

(B) Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland.

This tells us that average life expectancy of men in T is so short that they do not reach the age when they get susceptible to prostrate cancer. We know that healthcare improves life expectancy of people. As medical science progresses, people live longer and longer. They have cures for diseases and technology that helps give a longer life.

Say men are susceptible to it after 70 years of age. What if average life expectancy of men in T is only 65 years? People don't live as long in T because they don't have health care available. If they never reach the age of 70, they will not reach the age when they get susceptible to prostrate cancer. They would have died before reaching that age. They would have died because of whatever else but they wouldn't die because of prostrate cancer. 
While in R, men must be living longer (because of healthcare facilities) and hence would easily reach the age of 70. After that some of them would get prostrate cancer and hence some deaths would occur because of it. This explains the discrepancy in the figures.

(C) Being in poor general health does not increase one’s risk of developing prostate cancer.

Doesn't explain the reversing of the numbers in case of prostrate cancer.

(D) It is possible to decrease one’s risk of getting prostate cancer by eating certain kinds of foods, and such foods are more readily available in Rubaria than in Terland.

As per this, R's figures should be better then. It has foods that decrease risk of getting prostate cancer.

(E) Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do.

We are distinguishing between men in R and men in T. Why is the death rate due to prostate cancer in T significantly lower than that in R? If in R, men taking advantage of the health care system have lower death rate and those not taking full advantage have higher death rate due to prostrate cancer, then men in T must have the highest death rate due to prostrate cancer because they get no healthcare facilities. 
It doesn't explain why T has lower death rate than R. Hence it doesn't explain the paradox.

Answer (B)

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
We are comparing here the percentage of the male population that dies of prostate cancer, which is significantly higher in Rubaria than in Terland. But what if the life expectancy of men in Rubaria is 90 years, and usually, the prostate starts in the late 60s, while in Terland, the average life expectancy is 58 years? So if most of the men in Terland don't even cross 60 naturally, the number of cases with the prostate will be lower. That's what option B highlights.

Option Elimination - 
(A) Effective treatment of prostate cancer in its early stages generally requires medical techniques available in Rubaria but not in Terland. - It worsens the paradox. Opposite of the option that we need.

(B) Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for male inhabitants of Terland. - ok. Per our pre-thinking.

(C) Being in poor general health does not increase one’s risk of developing prostate cancer. - This is what the argument is conveying, but our job here is to find out the option that resolves the paradox not just state the paradox that we already know.

(D) It is possible to decrease one’s risk of getting prostate cancer by eating certain kinds of foods, and such foods are more readily available in Rubaria than in Terland. It worsens the paradox. Opposite of the option that we need.

(E) Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s healthcare system than for those who do. But it doesn't talk at all about the men in Terland. This is a Half-truth which is wrong.

In Rubaria, excellent health care is available to virtually the entire

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In Rubaria, excellent health care is available to virtually the entire

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards