Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 19:47

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Public health expert: Until recently people believed that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 82
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 251 [2] , given: 29

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2012, 06:14
2
KUDOS
23
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

35% (03:24) correct 65% (01:54) wrong based on 778 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 445
Location: United States (MA)
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 176 [1] , given: 46

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2012, 16:05
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 464
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 466 [0], given: 11

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2012, 00:00
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
_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 46
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.4
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2012, 21:03
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
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10366
Followers: 999

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2014, 04:55
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.
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2014
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2014, 20:22
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.
Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 175
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 83

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2014, 13:44
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?
Intern
Joined: 01 Oct 2012
Posts: 18
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
WE: Research (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 9

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2014, 11:03
gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
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?

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.
Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 586
Schools: Cambridge'16
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 41

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2014, 04:00
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
Manager
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 121
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 174

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 14:17
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).
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 40

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 14:34
Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1132
Location: United States
Followers: 278

Kudos [?]: 3111 [1] , given: 123

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 15:14
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
p2bhokie wrote:
Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

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?

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.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 40

Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 17:11
pqhai wrote:
p2bhokie wrote:
Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

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?

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.

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

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 30 Jul 2011
Posts: 11
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 05-31-2024
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 22

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 11:53
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."
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 193
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 49

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2015, 05:43
[quote="Ankit04041987"]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?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10366
Followers: 999

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2016, 06:50
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.
Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2016
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 4

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2016, 07:06
ssriva2 wrote:
Ankit04041987 wrote:
I have a doubt..
change "to health policy" .How can informing people lead to change in health policy?

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.
Manager
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Posts: 50
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 2

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2017, 09:42
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.
Intern
Joined: 11 Sep 2016
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 18

Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2017, 18:29
p2bhokie wrote:
pqhai wrote:
p2bhokie wrote:
Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.

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?

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.

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

Posted from my mobile device

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?"
Re: Public health expert: Until recently people believed that   [#permalink] 09 May 2017, 18:29
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Sheila: Health experts generally agree that 2 10 May 2017, 02:07
4 Some people believe that good health is due to luck 4 17 Nov 2016, 12:12
3 Public policy dictates the health risks the public routinely 6 22 Jul 2016, 01:43
2 Public policy dictates the health risks the public routinely 18 14 May 2015, 22:23
2 Until now, this painting was believed to be a self portrait 15 05 Feb 2016, 19:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by