Over the past three decades, the number of hospital beds available for

One way to weaken is to show Alternate Cause.
In the argument,
Cause: Decreased Bed #
Effect: Increased mortality rate

E Says
Cause: Increased incidence of mental disorders that are more likely to end in death [regardless of bed/no bed]
Effect: Increased mortality rate

Alternate cause is found. Hence, E is correct

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo DmitryFarber I am convincing that (E) strengthen the argument instead of weaken it.

Conclusion : Annual mortality rates for persons with mental disorders have RISEN substantially in the United States, while declining in Japan.

(E) Over the past three decades, the incidence of mental disorders that are more likely to end in death has RISEN in the United States and declined in Japan.
_________________

i guess u also overlooked the question stem as i did:

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the conclusion that the reduction in hospital beds is principally responsible for the increase in mortality in the United States?

read it care fully once: Reduction of hospital beds is responsible for the inc in mortality ...

E weakens by saying that person death is responsible for dec. in mortality
They dont need xtra bed to accommodate ppl ..As ppl usually die ....
Hope it helps...

A- Out of scope
B - advances and training might help after the three decades not during that time.
C- Out of Scope
D-Nowhere it is mentioned that treatment of mental disorders was expensive
E- CORRECT - Lack of beds is not the root cause of the situation. Patients died because the incidence is irrespective of any circumstance. It was bound to happen

(A) The number of hospital beds available for inpatient psychiatric treatment in Canada has declined over the past three decades, with no increase in mortality.
(B) Due to advances in medical care and training over the past three decades, outpatient treatment is more effective than inpatient treatment for many mental disorders.
(C) The incidence of mental disorders in Japan has been decreasing, even as the country has increased the number of beds available for inpatient psychiatric treatment.
(D) Over the past three decades, Japan has offered state-sponsored health insurance to all citizens, while the United States has not.
(E) Over the past three decades, the incidence of mental disorders that are more likely to end in death has risen in the United States and declined in Japan.

A cause-effect weaken question. Options A, B and D are straight up irrelevant. I can't understand what could be the implications if Option C were true.

Effect: "Annual mortality rates for persons with mental disorders have risen substantially in the United States, while declining in Japan."
Implied Cause: The decrease in the number of beds inpatient psychiatric treatment.

hazelnut

Option E is correct because it proves that it is the increase in the mental disorders 'that are more likely to end in death' that caused the increase in mortality rates and not the change in the number of beds. Actually, the question asks about a subset of all mental disorders, the subset being fatal mental disorders. With the increase in fatal mental disorders, the mortality rates have increased even if the incidence of total mental disorders stayed the same. Thus alternate cause is established, weakening the original cause-effect relationship.

I m not satisfied with option E, Consider the scenario, If the incidence of mental disorders that are more likely to end in death has risen at the same time when hospitals have reduced the no.of beds then, in that case, it Strengths the conclusion, I think answer should be stating something like the incidence resulting in death started decade or years before the bed reduction ,Kindly help

Answer choice is showing another phenomenon that occurred at the same time as the reduction in the number of beds. This phenomenon could cause the increase in mortality all by itself, even without a decrease in number of beds. Any time we have a situation like that, it raises the possibility that the originally-attributed cause (bed reduction) may not be the cause after all. Certainly, it's still possible that either or BOTH of these factors are to blame. But introducing this second possible cause reduces our certainty in the initial conclusion, whereas if that were the only explanation available, we'd have to stick with the conclusion.

In general, since our job is never to PROVE or DISPROVE but just to strengthen or weaken, we can always strengthen or weaken a causal argument by eliminating or introducing one possible cause.
_________________

Could anyone explain me that why option D cannot be the answer as It also gives us the other reason for increase in mortality rates other than reduction in hospital beds.

(D) Over the past three decades, Japan has offered state-sponsored health insurance to all citizens, while the United States has not.

D offers another possibility but it is too vague to work effectively. Pay close attention to the wording "all citizens", which is a larger scope than "person with mental disorder" and it's a more general health insurance for everyone, which might or might not cover "mental disorders".

If E) is a much worse answer I would go for D), however E) is a typical correct answer in weaken questions - the result is the cause itself, breaking the logic link here

sometimes I have the same thought - but maybe we need to think about which scenarios to apply this "extra layer of thinking". GMAT always asks "what's the best answer" and one of typical ways to challenge us is to leave rooms for critics for each choice but draw the evident line between incorrect and correct answers.

for E, it clearly states that the input factor (people with mental disorder) is more likely to not function (die), so the result (higher proportion of people dying) must be explained by other factors before those patients get treatments, attacking the effect period of the factor "bed availability"

since some pictures used for illustrate the idea cannot fully paste to the forum board, I choose to post my way of thinking in attachment

If we're talking about introducing an alternate cause in such a question, why can't B be considered?
If outpatient treatment is more effective, more people could be opting for it and the deaths could be caused by issues with that treatment as opposed to a reduction in hospital beds.
Is it because the advances have happened over the 3 decades making it more effective NOW and the passage talks about the increase in deaths over the 3 decades time period?
DmitryFarber

B doesn't matter for at least two significant reasons:

1) It isn't clearly relevant for the people we're talking about. Even if outpatient treatment is better for *some* people, it could still be the case that inpatient treatment is needed for many others who aren't able to get it due to bed availability. This choice does nothing to suggest an alternative cause for the change in mortality.

2) It also doesn't help us to distinguish between the US and Japan. If B is true, we still don't know whether the outpatient vs. inpatient decision is being handled differently in the two countries.

For this choice to work, we'd basically have to know that the US was *incorrectly* providing inpatient vs. outpatient treatment to a significant number of patients. This doesn't fit the evidence that we have, and the answer does nothing to help.
_________________

Can somebody please explain why C is incorrect ?

Thanks everyone for the good answers.

Dear Manhattan Team,

Can some one explain me why i am wrong..
If you read E as below: -

the incidence of mental disorders that are more likely to end in death has risen in the United States and declined in Japan. because there are less BEDs in US

the bold part i can assume given the premise, and turns out it is paraphrasing of the original conclusion, which should be an incorrect option.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(E) Over the past three decades, the incidence of mental disorders that are more likely to end in death has risen in the United States and declined in Japan:



The question asks you to cast doubt on, or weaken, the conclusion that the reduction in hospital beds for inpatient psychiatric treatment in the United States is the primary cause for the increase in mortality among this population.

Did you notice where the conclusion to this argument was stated? It was actually in the question, not the main body of the argument. The GMAT sometimes structures arguments in this manner so don’t be surprised to find a conclusion as part of the question.

In order to weaken the idea that the reduction in beds is the cause, you could find another plausible cause for the increase in mortality rate. There are many possible alternatives: an increase in poverty or illegal drug use, a change in treatment plans or health insurance policies, and so on.

Note that, though the body of the argument addresses both the United States and Japan, the conclusion is limited specifically to the United States. Expect a trap or two in the answer choices revolving around Japan.

Answer (A) goes outside the scope of the argument by discussing Canada. While it might be true that Canada and the United States are similar in various ways, data about Canada does not weaken the conclusion about the United States.

Likewise, answer (B) brings up the idea of outpatient treatment, but the argument specifically refers to inpatient treatment. Further, this choice might explain why the number of inpatient hospital beds has declined, but it does not address the mortality issue.

Answer (C) is the Japan trap. The conclusion relates specifically to the situation in the United States. The knowledge that the incidence of mental disorders in Japan has been decreasing does not apply to the claim about the United States.

Answer (D) is tempting. Perhaps mortality is higher in the United States because not as many people have access to health insurance? Here’s the catch: This lack of access has existed over the entire three-decade period. So why did the United States have an increase in mortality during this period?

Choice (E) is the correct answer. If certain types of mental disorders that are more likely to result in death are on the rise in the United States, but not in Japan, then that provides an alternative reason why the United States had an increase in mortality rates. The number of beds might have had nothing to do with it.



_________________

Is an answer like A always going to be out of scope? Otherwise I don't understand why a congruent example would be considered "out of scope" and incorrect.

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.
_________________