NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 12:36 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 12:36
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

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
MBA2ran
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 707 [59]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 05 Jan 2019, 02:40
7
Kudos
52
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:27) correct 20% (01:45) wrong based on 3411 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C

Originally posted by MBA2ran on 28 Dec 2006, 03:35.
Last edited by Bunuel on 05 Jan 2019, 02:40, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64880 [15]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   06 Feb 2019, 06:25
12
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
MBA2ran wrote:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.


Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease.
Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility.

Conclusion: the people who follow them will never get sick.

It is a conditional conclusion. If one follows these strategies, one will never get sick.

We are concluding that the individual will NEVER get sick. So we are concluding that ALL sickness has some genetic connect.

(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

No. The argument talks about strategies. There needn't be only one.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

The argument doesn't assume it. It might imply this indirectly since "people will never get sick" but it is certainly not an assumption.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

Correct. Since we are saying that they will never get sick, we are assuming that ALL human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

Not an assumption. All humans needn't get sick. We do not have to assume that all humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases. It is possible that some humans are not genetically susceptible to any diseases. They may not get sick. Out assumption is that all sickness is a result of genetic susceptibilities.

Mudit27021988
Negate (D) - All humans are not genetically susceptible to some diseases.
Conclusion can still hold. Those humans who are not genetically susceptible to some diseases may anyway not get sick. It does not mean that some humans are susceptible to non-genetic diseases. It only means that they are not susceptible to genetic diseases. Why do they have to be susceptible to any diseases?

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
We don't need to worry about whether people will follow medical advice and when will they follow it. The conclusion is conditional. If they follow, they will not get sick.

Answer (C)
General Discussion
User avatar
khaos
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [3]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: London
Concentration: Finance
 Q49  V48
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   28 Dec 2006, 04:46
3
Kudos
My pick is C.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals’ genetic susceptibilities

If all sicknesses are in part the result of individuals’ genetic susceptibilities, then people who follow the strategies will never get sick.
However, if some sicknesses are a result of something other than genetic susceptibilities, then the argument won't stand.

Therefore the argument is based on C
avatar
B
sagarsangani123
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2017
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [0]
Given Kudos: 82
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2020, 11:51
VeritasKarishma wrote:
MBA2ran wrote:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.


Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease.
Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility.

Conclusion: the people who follow them will never get sick.

It is a conditional conclusion. If one follows these strategies, one will never get sick.

We are concluding that the individual will NEVER get sick. So we are concluding that ALL sickness has some genetic connect.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

Correct. Since we are saying that they will never get sick, we are assuming that ALL human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.
Mudit27021988


Hello VeritasKarishma,

Does the fact that 'all human sicknesses are 'in part' the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities, give rise to a doubt that since human sicknesses are not entirely the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities, the people could still fall sick?

What am I missing? Kindly help resolve :(
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64880 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   26 Oct 2020, 00:27
Expert Reply
saurabh9gupta wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
MBA2ran wrote:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.


Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease.
Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility.

Conclusion: the people who follow them will never get sick.

It is a conditional conclusion. If one follows these strategies, one will never get sick.

We are concluding that the individual will NEVER get sick. So we are concluding that ALL sickness has some genetic connect.

(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

No. The argument talks about strategies. There needn't be only one.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

The argument doesn't assume it. It might imply this indirectly since "people will never get sick" but it is certainly not an assumption.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

Correct. Since we are saying that they will never get sick, we are assuming that ALL human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

Not an assumption. All humans needn't get sick. We do not have to assume that all humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases. It is possible that some humans are not genetically susceptible to any diseases. They may not get sick. Out assumption is that all sickness is a result of genetic susceptibilities.

Mudit27021988
Negate (D) - All humans are not genetically susceptible to some diseases.
Conclusion can still hold. Those humans who are not genetically susceptible to some diseases may anyway not get sick. It does not mean that some humans are susceptible to non-genetic diseases. It only means that they are not susceptible to genetic diseases. Why do they have to be susceptible to any diseases?

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
We don't need to worry about whether people will follow medical advice and when will they follow it. The conclusion is conditional. If they follow, they will not get sick.

Answer (C)


@vertaskarishma - i agree with the OA but in your reasoning you mentioned - "So we are concluding that ALL sickness has some genetic connect."
My question is that how did you conclude that ALL sickness has some genetic connect?



saurabh9gupta

The argument tells that effective strategies will be discovered to counter each genetic susceptibility.

The conclusion says that people who follow will never get sick i.e. will get no disease. This means, for every disease, an effective strategy would be there. We are assuming then that every disease has a genetic component.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64880 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   30 Oct 2020, 03:04
Expert Reply
VeritasKarishma wrote:
MBA2ran wrote:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.


Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease.
Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility.

Conclusion: the people who follow them will never get sick.

It is a conditional conclusion. If one follows these strategies, one will never get sick.

We are concluding that the individual will NEVER get sick. So we are concluding that ALL sickness has some genetic connect.

(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

No. The argument talks about strategies. There needn't be only one.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

The argument doesn't assume it. It might imply this indirectly since "people will never get sick" but it is certainly not an assumption.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

Correct. Since we are saying that they will never get sick, we are assuming that ALL human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

Not an assumption. All humans needn't get sick. We do not have to assume that all humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases. It is possible that some humans are not genetically susceptible to any diseases. They may not get sick. Out assumption is that all sickness is a result of genetic susceptibilities.

Mudit27021988
Negate (D) - All humans are not genetically susceptible to some diseases.
Conclusion can still hold. Those humans who are not genetically susceptible to some diseases may anyway not get sick. It does not mean that some humans are susceptible to non-genetic diseases. It only means that they are not susceptible to genetic diseases. Why do they have to be susceptible to any diseases?

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
We don't need to worry about whether people will follow medical advice and when will they follow it. The conclusion is conditional. If they follow, they will not get sick.

Answer (C)


Quote:
In C they mentioned the word in part. Does it not mean that all diseases are genetic susceptible only to some extent? I understand that they mentioned All diseases, but when in part is used, does that not mean they are other factors as well which are not in our hands to control with the discovered strategies and does that not break the conclusion that people will never get sick?


Yes, (C) means that there is a component of genetic susceptibility in every disease.
Presumably, if that component is taken care of, the disease may not remain viable.

Genetics has some role to play in every disease is enough assumption. If we are concluding that controlling genetics will get rid of ALL disease, we need to assume that genetics has at least some role in all diseases. Only then is it possible that controlling genetics gets rid of all. If genetics has 'no' role in some diseases, then those cannot be eradicated by genetics.


Negate (C): Not all human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

This means there are some diseases in which genetics plays no role. This breaks our conclusion.
User avatar
B
MukuDawra
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Nov 2021
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   27 Nov 2022, 04:31
I have doubt in option D

It states that All humans are susceptible to some disease.
If all humans are susceptible to some diseases then all of the humans will have some strategy to follow in next 20 years and the one who follows those strategy will not get sick at all. This statement certainly strengthens the argument.
Negation
1) All humans are not susceptible some genetic disease.
If not all people are susceptible to genetic disease then the ones who are not susceptible stand a chance of getting sick even after following the strategy
2) All humans are susceptible to none of the genetic disease.
If humans are not susceptible to any of the genetic disease then how would the strategy be formed if we don't have any starting point for strategy formation.

Both these negation breaks the conclusion provided by the argument. Hence it is a valid assumption
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63649 [3]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   03 Dec 2022, 20:08
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
MukuDawra wrote:
I have doubt in option D

It states that All humans are susceptible to some disease.
If all humans are susceptible to some diseases then all of the humans will have some strategy to follow in next 20 years and the one who follows those strategy will not get sick at all. This statement certainly strengthens the argument.
Negation
1) All humans are not susceptible some genetic disease.
If not all people are susceptible to genetic disease then the ones who are not susceptible stand a chance of getting sick even after following the strategy
2) All humans are susceptible to none of the genetic disease.
If humans are not susceptible to any of the genetic disease then how would the strategy be formed if we don't have any starting point for strategy formation.

Both these negation breaks the conclusion provided by the argument. Hence it is a valid assumption

The author concludes that "people who follow [the strategies] will never get sick."

We're looking for an assumption on which the argument is based. In other words, which answer choice absolutely MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up?

Here's (D):
Quote:
(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

"Susceptible to some disease" just means capable of getting that disease. (D) tells us that EVERYONE is susceptible to some diseases. In other words, NO ONE is incapable of getting sick.

Do we need this to be true in order for the argument to hold up? Nope, we don't!

The author argues that the people who ARE susceptible and follow the strategies will NOT get sick. That doesn't mean that EVERYONE must be susceptible. Perhaps there are some superhuman folks out there who just can't get sick, and they never get any diseases even if they don't follow any of the particular strategies. That's totally fine! As long as the other people -- the ones who ARE susceptible -- who follow the strategies don't get sick, then the author's argument holds up.

Because the argument holds even if some people are not susceptible to disease, (D) is not an assumption on which the argument is based.

Compare that to (C):
Quote:
(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

The author thinks that, because we'll have such great strategies to prevent illness linked to genetic susceptibility, people who follow the strategies won't get sick at all.

But wait: what if there are diseases that have nothing to do with genetics? Then people could follow all of the strategies in the world to prevent genetically susceptible illnesses, and STILL get sick with some other disease.

That's a major problem for the author's argument. In order to conclude that people will NEVER get sick, the author MUST assume that all human sickness is linked to genetic susceptibilities.

(C) has to be true in order for the author's argument to hold up, so (C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
B
SnorLax_7
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 1840
Send PM
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   23 Jan 2024, 10:45
Quote:
All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities


Hi MartyMurray AnishPassi ChiranjeevSingh EMPOWERgmatVerbal KarishmaB DmitryFarber

I know all other options dont make sense, but this option C on any other day, could be a weakener, forget about the assumption. If i say 'sicknesses are only partly caused by genetic vulnerabilities then there are other factors as well and we cant conclude that 'we will never get sick' only by following those strategies.

I pre think the 'other factors' gap and it is correct as well I suppose.

if that option had had no 'in part' then option C would have been correct.

Am i correct in my thinking, if not, then can you pls guide ?
User avatar
P
MartyMurray
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 818
Own Kudos [?]: 1404 [1]
Given Kudos: 74
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   25 Jan 2024, 15:28
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
SnorLax_7 wrote:
Quote:
All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities


I know all other options dont make sense, but this option C on any other day, could be a weakener, forget about the assumption. If i say 'sicknesses are only partly caused by genetic vulnerabilities then there are other factors as well and we cant conclude that 'we will never get sick' only by following those strategies.

I pre think the 'other factors' gap and it is correct as well I suppose.

if that option had had no 'in part' then option C would have been correct.

Am i correct in my thinking, if not, then can you pls guide ?

I agree that the wording of (C) is not ideal since what you said above makes some sense.

At the same time, (C) does not say what you said (C) says, which is "are ONLY in part." Rather it says, "All human sicknesses ARE IN PART the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities."

Our goal is to get credit for this question by choosing the answer the question-writer considered correct.

So, what we need to do is see that what the author meant by "All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities," is that genetic susceptibilities play at least some role in the development of all human sicknesses.

Then, we can see that (C) states a necessary assumption since only if genetic susceptibilities play at least some role in the development of all human sicknesses does the argument work.

If the question writer used "only in part," (C) would indeed be a weakener. However, as written, (C) can be read as I suggested above and thus can be an assumption.

So, we can get this question correct by seeing that none of the other choices work at all, noticing that (C) can be read as I suggested, determining that that way of reading it is likely in line with what the question writer intended, and choosing (C).
User avatar
B
SnorLax_7
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 1840
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   26 Jan 2024, 02:21
Thank you so much MartyMurray for your kind response, so what I understand is that because nothing is mentioned about the other factors playing any role in sickness, we can't assume that. also when option is saying 'are in part' and not 'only in part'.
and How C is written is somehow making a connection between all human sickness and Gen. Vulner. or playing some role so that's why it should be the answer, obviously its negation devastating the conclusion.

Am i Correct in my thinking ?
User avatar
P
MartyMurray
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 818
Own Kudos [?]: 1404 [0]
Given Kudos: 74
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 29 Jan 2024, 08:15
Expert Reply
SnorLax_7 wrote:
Thank you so much MartyMurray for your kind response, so what I understand is that because nothing is mentioned about the other factors playing any role in sickness, we can't assume that.

Not exactly. There could be other factors as well, but it's possible that those other factors would not be able to cause sickness if genetic susceptibilities didn't exist.

In other words, it could be the case that, for a person to experience sickness, the person has to both have genetic susceptibilities and be affected by other factors. In such a case, addressing genetic susceptibilities would present people from becoming ill even if other factors were present because the other factors on their own, without genetic susceptibilities, would not be sufficient to make people sick.

Quote:
also when option is saying 'are in part' and not 'only in part'.
and How C is written is somehow making a connection between all human sickness and Gen. Vulner. or playing some role so that's why it should be the answer, obviously its negation devastating the conclusion.

Am i Correct in my thinking ?

Yes, you got it.

Originally posted by MartyMurray on 26 Jan 2024, 09:54.
Last edited by MartyMurray on 29 Jan 2024, 08:15, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
B
SnorLax_7
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 1840
Send PM
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink] New post   29 Jan 2024, 04:34
Thanks MartyMurray, though I am still little bit confused, I will try to analyse the things you mentioned.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic [#permalink]
29 Jan 2024, 04:34
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