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!
_________________

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Hi ,
Please read this excellent answer in earlier post

VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry GMATNinja

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

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
_________________

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

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.
_________________