Public health expert: Until recently people believed that

Question

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will
only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines. The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.

Can someone explain why option a is incorrect

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Hello.

This is a conclusion question, so it's important to understand the " purpose " of the author. Why does he explain/mention/talk about something? What he wants to suggest? What he implies? That helps to solve "conclusion" question.

Let analyze the question.

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines.  The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.

The  blue part is the  suggestion .  That's the KEY. Let ask yourself why the expert suggests something? --> He wants to improve anything?
 
Analyze each answer choice.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
 Wrong.  It just repeats the fact and is NOT a conclusion of the public health expert.

(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
 Wrong.  Out of scope. We can’t conclude that. The public health expert just says that the strategy would place more emphasis than at present on informing people about the transmission of diseases. That’s it. No comparison of how effective between a present method and that of other time period.
 
(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
 Correct.  This is exactly what the expert wants to say. Let ask yourself why the public health expert suggested a new strategy? The reason is, off course, the current public health policy is NOT good enough to prevent the diseases.
 
(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
 Wrong.  Can’t infer that. A fully informed about the disease may be a victim to the diseases. “Informed” does not mean “100% prevented”.

(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.
 Wrong.  We don’t know whether some previous approached ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at rapid rate or not. We have no clue about that.

Hope it helps.

piyatiwari · Answer

C is correct. Good question.

'therefore' in the last sentence is the key: The conclusion is

public health strategy would place much more emphasis <than at present> on fully informing people about blah blah

'than at present' tells us that there is scope of editing/revising the publick health strategy.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses
the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing
microorganism can cause the evolution
of a drug-resistant variety. <<< This is not conclusion. Its given in the passage as premises

(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by
microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by
present methods. <<< Can not say this from given info

(C) There is good reason to make a particular
change to public health policy. << Correct

(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases
caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim
to those diseases. << given info doesn't say this.

(E) Some previous approaches to public health
policy ignored the fact that disease-causing
microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate << Partially true, but again, not conclusion. Added premises to the first sentence.

mbaiseasy · Answer

Ppl belief: Biochem could achve vctry over micro until rec.
BUT, killing 1 -> other micro evolves 
THEREFORE, MOST rational public health strat is spread INFO

(A) is an evidence Not the Point

(B) is not supported by argument; in fact, it says it can kill one micro (BUT cause others to evolve)

(C) is exactly the point (change public health policy/strategy)

(D) is extreme / not really supported by argument

(E) is not the point

gamelord · Answer

I think A only represents information of this part "However, current medical research shows that
those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will
only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines"
The primary purpose of this passage is to urge a change in public health strategy

dbaremberg · Answer

I disagree - I think that this question is weak, because the passage does not give information telling us what the current health care policy is; merely that a certain tactic is more rational.

gauravkaushik8591 · Answer

All the questions that state 'which of the following can be concluded?' do allow paraphrase of the stimulus (where the question stimulus acts as the evidence for deriving the conclusion). Why then can we not use paraphrase of evidence here?

geezer0305 · Answer

This question asks you to predict  the conclusion that the health expert will arrive at   (not what you, the reader, can conclude) . The health expert's conclusion will not be a paraphrase of the evidence (s)he cites.

Had the question asked- what can be inferred, what must be true or even what can be concluded...... I agree, paraphrased evidence would have been correct.

Temurkhon · Answer

It is not inference/must be true question, it is main point question that have conclusion. The correct answer should repeat conclusion not premise, so only option is C

nitin6305 · Answer

Can someone please advise why Option B is incorrect? The question stem wants us to rephrase the conclusion. The conclusion says that people should be careful so as to not contract any disease by micro-organisms, doesn't it mean that he is saying because there is no treatment available for diseases caused by micro-organisms (this is indicated from the premise as well).

p2bhokie · Answer

Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

p2bhokie · Answer

Thanks pqhai...the answer started to make a lot more sense...thanks again...

Posted from my mobile device

mbasile · Answer

Sorry for jumping in late here, but I think I can add some value. ALL (except for inferences questions) CR questions on the GMAT can be broken down into 3 buckets:

1. Descriptive Arguments
2. Ascriptive Arguments
3. Prescriptive Arguments

This is a prescriptive argument . A prescriptive argument is one that outlines a problem and prescribes a solution. The author will commonly advocate some new piece of technology, or some new method of doing a thing. They'll conclude that the new method is the best, safest, cheapest, and/or handsomest. Once you understand this, it becomes clear that the conclusion is C: "there is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy." --  REPHRASED: "there is good reason to accept my prescription."

ssriva2 · Answer

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will
only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines. The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?

(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.

I have a doubt..
change "to health policy" .How can informing people lead to change in health policy?A
I think B is more appropriate than C?

wainsdaylion · Answer

You're putting the horse behind the cart here. The "public health expert" is advocating a "public health strategy" of "informing people". The expert is not saying we should inform people to change the policy.

chessgiants · Answer

A is incorrect because of 2 reasons. First, the medicine pill only creates anti-drug bacteria if it is abused.
Secondly, to get conclusion, ones should look at the premises and reasoning.

KM2018AA · Answer

Hi. pqhai

While i agree with the best answer choice as C, I have some reservations on your explanation of why choice B is incorrect, a reservation I request you to help me get rid of

(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
 Wrong.  Out of scope. We can’t conclude that. The public health expert just says that the strategy would place more emphasis than at present on informing people about the transmission of diseases. That’s it. No comparison of how effective between a present method and that of other time period.
 
 I ask why is this out of scope. The author's statement  
 
 However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines

specifically points to the ineffectiveness of the currently available medicines in that these cannot completely cure the diseases (caused by microorganisms) because attempting to kill one type subsequently leads to evolution of a new resistant variety , leaving the disease uncured. So can we not conclude that the present method to cure diseases (treating patients with currently available medicines to fight micro organisms that caused this disease) is proving to be ineffective ? hence the patient cannot be cured effectively through present methods? . Does my point make sense or am I over analysing it?"

Bob476 · Answer

Hi KM2018AA,

Good questions to be asking!

Re:
 "However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines
 
  specifically points to the ineffectiveness of the currently available medicines in that these cannot completely cure the diseases (caused by microorganisms) because attempting to kill one type subsequently leads to evolution of a new resistant variety , leaving the disease uncured. So can we not conclude that the present method to cure diseases (treating patients with currently available medicines to fight micro organisms that caused this disease) is proving to be ineffective ? hence the patient cannot be cured effectively through present methods? . Does my point make sense or am I over analysing it?"

Answer B is: A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.

Your point does make some sense but if you take the analysis further and continue debating answer B you might see that there are potential gaps in your argument.

In my thinking answer B can not be infered as we are not given any substantive information to conclude that a patient (not all or most, just a single patient) could not be cured by present methods. What might the cure rate for treatments currently be?

The author's conclusions is that the emphasis should be changed but it does not go as far as to say that medicines be removed from treating patients.

Also, do you have to kill all the microorganisms or could you just reduce the level of micro organisms, drug resistant or not, to treat someone?

Looking at the question being asked originally...
Answer B IMO does not answer what the question is looking for, it does not reflect the conclusion the author states in their last sentence

"The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases."

Hope that makes some sense

Aekkus · Answer

Why is it C and not E, kindly explain.

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.

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that

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

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that

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