Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances

Question

Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in some individuals. Psychiatrists in Virginia indicate that the proportion of patients coming to them for treatment of symptoms related to PTSD has increased enormously over the previous five years. Thus, either Virginia has become a much more violent and chaotic place over the last fiver years or individuals are more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The number of psychiatric practices in Virginia has not increased over the previous five years.

B. Individuals with PTSD are no more likely than other individuals to have other psychiatric disorders.

C. Individuals with PTSD are no more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago.

D. Virginia is an exceptionally nonviolent and organised environment.

E. Individuals in Virginia do not live in violent and chaotic circumstances any more often now than they did five years ago.

nightblade354 · Accepted Answer

Video Explanation:

Let us know what you think!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dc1kMFqWt4

J2S2019 · Answer

C is the correct answer,

Negating C becomes - "Individuals with PTSD are more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago" - If this is the situation then surely it shatters the argument by stating another reason of increase in treatment of symptoms related to PTSD .

Kinshook · Answer

C. Individuals with PTSD are no more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago.
is the correct answer since using negation test,
if Individuals with PTSD are more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago, then conclusion "Thus, either Virginia has become a much more violent and chaotic place over the last fiver years or individuals are more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago." falls apart.

IMO C

siddharthkapoor · Answer

Negation of option C is that individuals with PTSD are more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago, thus suggesting an alternate reason for increased proportion of patients coming to psychiatrists for treatment of symptoms related to PTSD, and therefore smashing the conclusion in the argument. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

rohit8865 · Answer

Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in some individuals. Psychiatrists in Virginia indicate that the proportion of patients coming to them for treatment of symptoms related to PTSD has increased enormously over the previous five years. Thus, either Virginia has become a much more violent and chaotic place over the last fiver years or individuals are more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The number of psychiatric practices in Virginia has not increased over the previous five years... number of psychiatric practices has nothing related to conclusion..Incorrect

B. Individuals with PTSD are no more likely than other individuals to have other psychiatric disorders.....o ther psychiatric disorders are out of scope..Incorrect

C. Individuals with PTSD are no more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago.... negating this statement will falsify the conclusion...Correct

D. Virginia is an exceptionally nonviolent and organised environment.... situation of virginia is out of scope...Incorrect

E. Individuals in Virginia do not live in violent and chaotic circumstances any more often now than they did five years ago..... where they used to live is nonsensical...Incorrect

Ans C

chrtpmdr · Answer

To me C) makes no sense. 
Yeah, it is the typical no-brainer answer you are tempted to click after 15 seconds of observing the question, but to me it seemed more like a trap answer.

"... or individuals are more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago."

This is what the prompt says, the prompt say either x is a reason or y is a reason. Now the answer choice C) basically gives us the same as the prompt does, or doesn't it? 
If individuals are no more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago then this whole sensitive argument is out of the race in my opinion.

I don't get it.

tinytiger · Answer

My two cents' worth here:

1. An increase in the proportion of people who reported for PTSD treatment does NOT ALWAYS mean that a greater NUMBER of people actually suffer PTSD, which has (according to the passage) resulted from more chaotic times or people being more sensitive to violence.

2. It could mean the same number of people who have always suffered PTSD, but that more people have now come forward to say that they're down with PTSD. That means it is not necessarily the case that these are more chaotic times nor that people are more sensitive to violence, which the argument is structured to imply an increase in the number of people reporting for PTSD (but then again, refer to point 1 - increase in proportion does not mean an increase in the total number of people suffering from PTSD).

3. Since we need to look for a defending assumption i.e. protect the conclusion from being destroyed or attacked fatally, we have to assume that either people are NOT more likely to come forth for PTSD treatment, which means the increased proportion is actually due to more people getting sensitive to violence or that these are indeed chaotic times.

Hence C is the answer.

Basshead · Answer

- Exposure to violent circumstances --> possibly PTSD
- Psychs in VA indicate proportion of people coming for PSTD has gone up
- Conclusion: VA is becoming more violent or individuals are becoming more sensitive to violence

The proportion of people coming for symptoms related to PTSD has gone up over the last five years. As a result, the argument concludes that Virginia must be becoming more violent or that individuals are becoming more sensitive.

A – Number of psychiatric practices is not a necessary assumption.

B – Irrelevant.

C  – Negation: Individuals with PTSD are more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago. This completely shatters the argument. If individuals are more likely to seek diagnosis, then maybe Virginia is not becoming a more violent place. Instead, more individuals are going for treatment.

D – Goes against the conclusion – not what we’re looking for here.

E - Not a necessary assumption. Whether individuals are living in worse circumstances is irrelevant – the conclusion is that Virginia is more violent / people are more sensitive.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances

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

Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances

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