NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 04:38 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 04:38
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
Bunuel
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92901
Own Kudos [?]: 618705 [28]
Given Kudos: 81586
Send PM
CAT Tests Forum Quiz Mode
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   11 Apr 2019, 00:55
4
Kudos
24
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:31) correct 53% (02:49) wrong based on 705 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn


A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

D. Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64890 [13]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   11 Apr 2019, 05:11
9
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Bunuel wrote:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn


A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade



Premises:
- A decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods (effective) of treatment,
- An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments (which are ineffective).

Conclusion: Less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X.

Something that jumps up right away. The premises talk about the percentage of money spent (decreasing percentage). The conclusion talks about the amount of money spent (less money). We can't deduce the conclusion until and unless we know something about the total money spent.
If total money spent is the same or less, then a decreasing percentage means that less money is being spent now.
If total money spent is more than before, a decreasing percentage could still lead to the same amount of money or even more money being spent now.

We need to strengthen the conclusion (actually be able to establish it)

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade
We don't know anything about special treatments.

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.
Irrelevant. Our point is about the total money being spent on effective vs ineffective methods.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade
We don't know whether the total medical expenditure has increased or decreased. Anyway, we need to establish that less money is being spent. This says that more money is being spent in disease X.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment
What percentage of money was spent in ether is irrelevant. It is about whether the percentage is increasing or decreasing.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
This is what we needed as discussed above. If total money being spent is decreasing and its percentage being spent on effective treatment is also decreasing, then the amount of money being spent is certainly decreasing. A lower percentage of a lower amount is definitely lower.

Answer (E)
General Discussion
User avatar
L
AkshdeepS
VP
VP
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Status:It's near - I can see.
Posts: 1479
Own Kudos [?]: 1600 [0]
Given Kudos: 1002
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GPA: 3.01
WE:Engineering (Real Estate)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   11 Apr 2019, 03:10
Bunuel wrote:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.


Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn

Tough one for me :

I will go with D.

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

Passage does not talk about "Varieties of disease X". No mention of "expensive special treatment" in the passage too.

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

"Most expensive" is too extreme.Also it does not help to draw the conclusion. We only know that non standard treatments are ineffective and more money is being spent on them. This does not mean they are more expensive.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

Not helpful in drawing conclusion.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

Less %age of amount spent on effective(standard treatment methods). High %age of money spent on non standard treatment methods. So this has to be true. Best among all the answer choices.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade

Both the standard and non standard treatments are for disease X. We can't say the total amount of money for treating disease X has declined.
User avatar
L
AkshdeepS
VP
VP
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Status:It's near - I can see.
Posts: 1479
Own Kudos [?]: 1600 [1]
Given Kudos: 1002
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GPA: 3.01
WE:Engineering (Real Estate)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   11 Apr 2019, 05:24
1
Kudos
AkshdeepS wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.


Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn

Tough one for me :

I will go with D.

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

Passage does not talk about "Varieties of disease X". No mention of "expensive special treatment" in the passage too.

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

"Most expensive" is too extreme.Also it does not help to draw the conclusion. We only know that non standard treatments are ineffective and more money is being spent on them. This does not mean they are more expensive.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

Not helpful in drawing conclusion.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

Less %age of amount spent on effective(standard treatment methods). High %age of money spent on non standard treatment methods. So this has to be true. Best among all the answer choices.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade

Both the standard and non standard treatments are for disease X. We can't say the total amount of money for treating disease X has declined.


Indeed disappointed with my effort. :( . I got it wrong.
User avatar
L
AkshdeepS
VP
VP
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Status:It's near - I can see.
Posts: 1479
Own Kudos [?]: 1600 [0]
Given Kudos: 1002
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GPA: 3.01
WE:Engineering (Real Estate)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   11 Apr 2019, 05:47
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn


A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade



Premises:
- A decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods (effective) of treatment,
- An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments (which are ineffective).

Conclusion: Less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X.

Something that jumps up right away. The premises talk about the percentage of money spent (decreasing percentage). The conclusion talks about the amount of money spent (less money). We can't deduce the conclusion until and unless we know something about the total money spent.
If total money spent is the same or less, then a decreasing percentage means that less money is being spent now.
If total money spent is more than before, a decreasing percentage could still lead to the same amount of money or even more money being spent now.

We need to strengthen the conclusion (actually be able to establish it)

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade
We don't know anything about special treatments.

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.
Irrelevant. Our point is about the total money being spent on effective vs ineffective methods.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade
We don't know whether the total medical expenditure has increased or decreased. Anyway, we need to establish that less money is being spent. This says that more money is being spent in disease X.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment
What percentage of money was spent in ether is irrelevant. It is about whether the percentage is increasing or decreasing.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
This is what we needed as discussed above. If total money being spent is decreasing and its percentage being spent on effective treatment is also decreasing, then the amount of money being spent is certainly decreasing. A lower percentage of a lower amount is definitely lower.

Answer (E)


VeritasKarishma : Should not answer choice E include the word "effective treatment of disease" instead of simply "treating disease" as the conclusion is about effective treatment. But this choice is saying overall treatment expense. What about ineffective treatment expenses as they have increased?
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64890 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   11 Apr 2019, 21:18
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
AkshdeepS wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn


A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade



Premises:
- A decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods (effective) of treatment,
- An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments (which are ineffective).

Conclusion: Less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X.

Something that jumps up right away. The premises talk about the percentage of money spent (decreasing percentage). The conclusion talks about the amount of money spent (less money). We can't deduce the conclusion until and unless we know something about the total money spent.
If total money spent is the same or less, then a decreasing percentage means that less money is being spent now.
If total money spent is more than before, a decreasing percentage could still lead to the same amount of money or even more money being spent now.

We need to strengthen the conclusion (actually be able to establish it)

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade
We don't know anything about special treatments.

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.
Irrelevant. Our point is about the total money being spent on effective vs ineffective methods.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade
We don't know whether the total medical expenditure has increased or decreased. Anyway, we need to establish that less money is being spent. This says that more money is being spent in disease X.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment
What percentage of money was spent in ether is irrelevant. It is about whether the percentage is increasing or decreasing.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
This is what we needed as discussed above. If total money being spent is decreasing and its percentage being spent on effective treatment is also decreasing, then the amount of money being spent is certainly decreasing. A lower percentage of a lower amount is definitely lower.

Answer (E)


VeritasKarishma : Should not answer choice E include the word "effective treatment of disease" instead of simply "treating disease" as the conclusion is about effective treatment. But this choice is saying overall treatment expense. What about ineffective treatment expenses as they have increased?


No, you don't need the word effective treatment to draw the conclusion. Actually, if you add the word effective, (E) becomes the same as conclusion.

10 yrs ago:
Total money spent on both = $200
% spent on Effective = 70% ($140)
% spent on ineffective = 30% ($60)

Today:
Total money spent on both = $100 (As per option (E), this has decreased from 10 yrs ago)
% spent on Effective = 60% (argument tells us that this % is decreasing)
% spent on ineffective = 40%

Today, since total amount of money spent is lower and the % going to effective treatment is lower too, the money spent on effective treatment would be $60 which will be lower than the previous $140.
Since you have a smaller whole, and a smaller percentage of that, the number you get will certainly be smaller than before.
User avatar
B
nurba92
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Status:As cheeks from my insta feed say: soon...
Posts: 68
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [1]
Given Kudos: 144
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   20 Aug 2019, 01:51
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn


A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade


are there 3 treatments (treatment of diseaseX, standard treatment, and non-standard) in the argument or 2(standard and non-standard)?
Because I don't get what "less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X" means
avatar
B
kwanatk
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Jul 2018
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 168
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   25 Aug 2019, 02:06
This is an assumption question, which negation actually works on this question type. But not with this case. Please correct me if i'm wrong. The negation says "The total amount of money spent on treating disease X didn't decline during the past decade". This sentence means that the total amount can be the same as it was 10 years ago, and thus doesn't break the author's conclusion.

The question becomes can we select the choice if the negation of that choice doesn't break the conclusion apart?
User avatar
B
chrisbrain2019
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2019
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Location: Hong Kong
Schools: LBS '22 (A)
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.37
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   26 Aug 2019, 23:15
We have to find an assumption that supports "Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago. "

Only contenders are D and E.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

percentage/proportion in the past does not matter. even if 99% of the money was spent on nonstandard treatment and now it becomes 10%, the total money spent on treating disease X can increase so much that even 10% is greater than 99% 10 years ago.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade

If total money decreased and percentage of nonstandard treatment decreased, there is no way more money is being spent now on nonstandard treatment

E
avatar
B
dhruvasv5
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2016
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   01 Sep 2019, 02:10
The conclusion of the argument is: Lesser money is spent on treatment, which is effective over the past decade.
By pre-thinking assumptions there are 2 that come to my mind
1) Non standard treatment is not expensive(Nowhere that is mentioned) but I feel is assumed by the argument to reach the actual assumption
2) Percentage of money on effective decreases but amount can increase, we should be sure that is not the case, and that can happen only when the total amount of money spent decreases.Hence, option E.
User avatar
D
auradediligodo
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 368
Own Kudos [?]: 706 [0]
Given Kudos: 67
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
Schools: INSEAD Aug'24 intake Stanford '26 Columbia CBS'26 HBS '26 Haas '26 Wharton '26
GPA: 3.9
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   07 Sep 2019, 11:47
Hi everybody,

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn

Pre-thinking:
We can easily see that while the conclusion is based on money expressed as a number the data used to support that conclusion talks about money expressed as a %.
We are asked to find a statement that validates this conclusion.
The right way of doing this is to find first a falsification scenario and then negate it.

FS: Let's assume that in the past decade the money spent to treat the disease doubled, tripled etc... And let's imagine that the percentage allocated to st methods decreased by 1%. We can safely see how the total amount of money increased even tough the percentage allocated to st methods decrease.

Assumption: The total amount of money either remained the same or decreased in the past decade.


A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade
Out of the scope

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.
We are not concerned with how expensive treatments are but with how much money is spent on them. Incorrect

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade
Out of the scope

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment
Out of the scope

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

It is a good day to be alive, cheers!
avatar
S
livfcind
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2019
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 64 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   07 Sep 2019, 12:17
Less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.
What does this sentence exactly mean? Isn't money spent on effective treatment a subset of money spent on treating disease X and hence the latter would always be higher>
User avatar
VerbalBot
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17210
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink] New post   05 Jul 2023, 07:54
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.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating [#permalink]
05 Jul 2023, 07:54
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions