It is currently 24 Nov 2017, 06:22

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 21 May 2013
Posts: 542

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 492

CAT Tests
Re: Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2015, 08:27
PathFinder007 wrote:
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus' Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the previous vaccines.

The public health official's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

A.Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus' Disease.
B.Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.
C.Tacitus' Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.
D.No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus' Disease or Salicetiococcus.
E.The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus' Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.


I really doubt the OA of this question. IMHO, the answer should be D. A uses the word 'will' which is very strong. It can't be conclusively said that young children will be at risk. Experts-please pour in.

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 492

1 KUDOS received
Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3102

Kudos [?]: 1120 [1], given: 327

Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2015, 10:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
Initially marked D as my answer , got it wrong ad after re reading the question as well as the official answer I am very much convinced with the OA as (A)...

Here is why -

Tacitus' Disease ......( Vaccinating )......... | zero incidence of the disease |........... ( Vaccination Stopped )............

Few years ago when they reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children...

Why only childredn ? Because they were never vaccinated

This arguement suggests that children who are never vaccinated became victim to Salicetiococcus vaccines --------> Similar might happen with Tacitus' Disease as well.

Considering the above reasoning we can safely conclude that (A) is the best answer possible among the answer choices given !!

_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Kudos [?]: 1120 [1], given: 327

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 42

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2015, 20:34
'D' is more of an assumption than a conclusion, However, i am not completely sold on 'A' as well.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 42

SVP
SVP
User avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1904

Kudos [?]: 542 [0], given: 23

Re: Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2015, 23:26
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus' Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the previous vaccines.

The public health official's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

A.Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus' Disease. The Salicetiococcus outbreak occurred among children when vaccines were reduced. The same outcome might occur with reduction of the Tacitus' vaccine.
B.Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.Adequate refrigeration of meat is not mentioned and out of scope.
C.Tacitus' Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.The other disease is mentioned in order to discuss the effect of reducing vaccination (not to compare the diseases themselves). We know that there were no fatalities in the Salicetiococcus outbreak, but not more than that.
D.No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus' Disease or Salicetiococcus. Just because imported products are contaminated doesn't exclude the possibility that locally produced products aren't also contaminated.
E.The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus' Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.We know that hospitals have cut costs, but not that the vaccine places an undue burden on state health agencies.

Kudos [?]: 542 [0], given: 23

BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 11:46
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus' Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the previous vaccines.

The public health official's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus' Disease.
(B) Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.
(C) Tacitus' Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.
(D) No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus' Disease or Salicetiococcus.
(E) The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus' Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 44

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4503

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2015, 14:57
tuanquang269 wrote:
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus' Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the previous vaccines.

The public health official's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus' Disease.
(B) Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.
(C) Tacitus' Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.
(D) No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus' Disease or Salicetiococcus.
(E) The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus' Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.

Topics merged. tuanquang269, please search for a question before posting a new thread.
Thanks,
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 21

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2015, 11:57
mikemcgarry wrote:
jaituteja wrote:
Hi Mike,

How can we be so sure that the disease will definitely arrive for young children. The word "will" is very strong in option A.

Thanks, Jai

Dear Jai,
I'm happy to respond. :-)
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels.

Yes, the word "will" is a strong word, but we absolutely know this to be the case. You see, we know that Tacitus’ Disease is "a highly infectious virus," which means people get it very easily. It appears that the only reason Tacitus’ Disease hasn't be active for years is that the entire population has been vaccinated. Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population. If the authorities stop the vaccinations, then the children born after that time will be without any protection against this highly infectious disease. We can't say for sure that the children will get the disease, but it would seem that the probability is very high. We can say for sure that they are at risk. Any time someone is exposed to any danger without sufficient protection, by definition, they are "at risk." Infectious disease, no vaccination --- that's "at risk."

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Great question Mike. I do have some doubts about answer choice A even though it seems to be relatively correct. I believe we are not supposed to make assumptions on CR questions unless specifically asked to do so. Also, not resorting to outside knowledge is advised. When you say " people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus" isn't this an assumption you're making based on extrinsic knowledge rather than deducing it from the premises itself? The statement is right on but can we infer it from the information provided???
Secondly, it's mentioned that the discontinuation of the vaccination program has started just at the beginning of this year. So is it safe to assume that all young children up till the beginning of this year have been vaccinated?? So the threat is actually to infants, toddlers under the age of 1? Or are young children a broad category which includes the infants???
Would really appreciate your views on this... Thanks a tonne. :)

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 21

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4503

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2015, 12:30
RahulSingh13 wrote:
Great question Mike. I do have some doubts about answer choice A even though it seems to be relatively correct. I believe we are not supposed to make assumptions on CR questions unless specifically asked to do so. Also, not resorting to outside knowledge is advised. When you say " people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus" isn't this an assumption you're making based on extrinsic knowledge rather than deducing it from the premises itself? The statement is right on but can we infer it from the information provided???
Secondly, it's mentioned that the discontinuation of the vaccination program has started just at the beginning of this year. So is it safe to assume that all young children up till the beginning of this year have been vaccinated?? So the threat is actually to infants, toddlers under the age of 1? Or are young children a broad category which includes the infants???
Would really appreciate your views on this... Thanks a tonne. :)

Dear RahulSingh13,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, think about why the GMAT asks CR questions. The GMAT asks CR questions fundamentally because it wants to test your critical reasoning skills. People who have good critical reasoning skills will be successful in the business world: these are the people who can look at a set of disparate facts and deduce what is really happening and what needs to be done. The folks who have these insights are able to grab opportunities and prosper. The folks who are super-careful not to make any move until they know for sure will miss one opportunity after another. Think about your statement: "I believe we are not supposed to make assumptions on CR questions unless specifically asked to do so." With all due respect, this is the attitude of an obedient rule-follower. Obedient rule-followers are not the folks who are wildly successful in the business world, and business schools are not particularly interested in folks whose greatest asset is being obedient rule-followers. Your primary job on the GMAT CR is to use your intelligence to discern what is going on. The question absolutely demands that you use critical thinking skills to see beyond what is literally said to what is really happening.

There is a great deal of confusion about the issue of CR questions and outside knowledge. See this blog:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/
It's perfectly true that you need not be an expert in the specific topic that the CR prompt discusses. But, it's also true that you need to have a general idea of how the world works, and you have to recognize real world patterns that will come into play. The CR prompt might not state it specifically, but you need to recognize the law of supply and demand, or general facts about crime and trial law, or the nature of academic degrees, or what might motivate doctors or politicians or drivers or criminals or policemen or generals or home owners. In other words, you have to have an intelligent understanding of the world in which you live and the general patterns of why people make the choices they make. When you show up for your B-school interview, if they ask you some general things about the real world and you are naive in your understanding, you will not look good. An attractive B-school candidate is someone who can demonstrate that he is savvy about the push-and-pull of the real world.

In this question, it's perfectly true that you are not expected to be a medical expert about these specific diseases----these diseases are fictional anyway, so nobody in the world is an expert on them! It's also true that having a general knowledge of the difference between viruses and bacteria, as well as the general knowledge of how and why vaccines work, is simply something that every intelligent person should understand. If you don't know about this, you should consider it your responsibility to read up on it. These are not "assumptions"---these simply reflect an understanding of how the world works, and calling on this knowledge in this question an example of the kinds of critical thinking skills that the GMAT expects you to have!

As to your other question, infants are included as part of young children. Also, the nature of (A) is a prediction, in the future tense ---- in a year or two, the infants will be toddlers. We don't know when in the future the infection will be likely to occur, but the term "young children" includes both the infants now and the toddlers of a year or so away.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 21

Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2015, 22:00
mikemcgarry wrote:
RahulSingh13 wrote:
Great question Mike. I do have some doubts about answer choice A even though it seems to be relatively correct. I believe we are not supposed to make assumptions on CR questions unless specifically asked to do so. Also, not resorting to outside knowledge is advised. When you say " people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus" isn't this an assumption you're making based on extrinsic knowledge rather than deducing it from the premises itself? The statement is right on but can we infer it from the information provided???
Secondly, it's mentioned that the discontinuation of the vaccination program has started just at the beginning of this year. So is it safe to assume that all young children up till the beginning of this year have been vaccinated?? So the threat is actually to infants, toddlers under the age of 1? Or are young children a broad category which includes the infants???
Would really appreciate your views on this... Thanks a tonne. :)

Dear RahulSingh13,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, think about why the GMAT asks CR questions. The GMAT asks CR questions fundamentally because it wants to test your critical reasoning skills. People who have good critical reasoning skills will be successful in the business world: these are the people who can look at a set of disparate facts and deduce what is really happening and what needs to be done. The folks who have these insights are able to grab opportunities and prosper. The folks who are super-careful not to make any move until they know for sure will miss one opportunity after another. Think about your statement: "I believe we are not supposed to make assumptions on CR questions unless specifically asked to do so." With all due respect, this is the attitude of an obedient rule-follower. Obedient rule-followers are not the folks who are wildly successful in the business world, and business schools are not particularly interested in folks whose greatest asset is being obedient rule-followers. Your primary job on the GMAT CR is to use your intelligence to discern what is going on. The question absolutely demands that you use critical thinking skills to see beyond what is literally said to what is really happening.

There is a great deal of confusion about the issue of CR questions and outside knowledge. See this blog:
It's perfectly true that you need not be an expert in the specific topic that the CR prompt discusses. But, it's also true that you need to have a general idea of how the world works, and you have to recognize real world patterns that will come into play. The CR prompt might not state it specifically, but you need to recognize the law of supply and demand, or general facts about crime and trial law, or the nature of academic degrees, or what might motivate doctors or politicians or drivers or criminals or policemen or generals or home owners. In other words, you have to have an intelligent understanding of the world in which you live and the general patterns of why people make the choices they make. When you show up for your B-school interview, if they ask you some general things about the real world and you are naive in your understanding, you will not look good. An attractive B-school candidate is someone who can demonstrate that he is savvy about the push-and-pull of the real world.

In this question, it's perfectly true that you are not expected to be a medical expert about these specific diseases----these diseases are fictional anyway, so nobody in the world is an expert on them! It's also true that having a general knowledge of the difference between viruses and bacteria, as well as the general knowledge of how and why vaccines work, is simply something that every intelligent person should understand. If you don't know about this, you should consider it your responsibility to read up on it. These are not "assumptions"---these simply reflect an understanding of how the world works, and calling on this knowledge in this question an example of the kinds of critical thinking skills that the GMAT expects you to have!

As to your other question, infants are included as part of young children. Also, the nature of (A) is a prediction, in the future tense ---- in a year or two, the infants will be toddlers. We don't know when in the future the infection will be likely to occur, but the term "young children" includes both the infants now and the toddlers of a year or so away.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Hi Mike,

Firstly, I apologize if the the tone of my query came across a bit too strong and critical, that wasn't my intention. I've just started on my gmat preparation and my question drew from the prep material I've been referring to. When i said "we are not supposed........unless asked to do so", I was quite simply alluding to the "make an assumption" question type.

As it so happens, even i chose option A on a line of reasoning very similar to yours.
The intention of asking this question was to genuinely try and understand what can be considered as "bringing in outside knowledge" into an argument. The link you've posted is very helpful in that regard and i thank you for that.

With all due respect, making assumptions about my intelligence, attitude and future prospects based on perhaps an ill-framed question, seems like a leap in itself.
If you knew the first thing about me, "obedient rule follower" was the last thing you would have said :)

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 21

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4503

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Nov 2015, 14:11
RahulSingh13 wrote:
Hi Mike,

Firstly, I apologize if the the tone of my query came across a bit too strong and critical, that wasn't my intention. I've just started on my gmat preparation and my question drew from the prep material I've been referring to. When i said "we are not supposed........unless asked to do so", I was quite simply alluding to the "make an assumption" question type.

As it so happens, even i chose option A on a line of reasoning very similar to yours.
The intention of asking this question was to genuinely try and understand what can be considered as "bringing in outside knowledge" into an argument. The link you've posted is very helpful in that regard and i thank you for that.

With all due respect, making assumptions about my intelligence, attitude and future prospects based on perhaps an ill-framed question, seems like a leap in itself.
If you knew the first thing about me, "obedient rule follower" was the last thing you would have said :)

Dear RahulSingh13,

I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, thank you very much for a thoughtful and sincere response. I apologize if I appear to have made any unwarranted assumptions about you. In my responses in this public form, I try to address both the specific individual and whoever else might read the response. I have heard many students on GC fall into a pattern of "just tell me what to do," and I always like to warn against the long-term pitfalls of this approach.

It's clear to me from your response, my friend, that you are an intelligent individual with a strong sense of character. I respect that, and I know that adcom and potential employers will respect it as well. I wish you abundant success in your future. Let me know if I can ever be of help in explaining other questions on this site.

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 367

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Nov 2015, 00:03
mikemcgarry wrote:
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels.

The public health official’s statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease.
(B) Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.
(C) Tacitus’ Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.
(D) No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus’ Disease or Salicetiococcus.
(E) The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus’ Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.


One common GMAT CR question type is the "find the conclusion" or "find the inference" question. For a full discussion of this question type, as well as an explanation of this question, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... inference/

Mike :-)

HI Mike , awesome question with great explanation. I got it wrong, as i assumed No internal food can harm, but was little skipticle about this assumption as this assumption will not 100% lead us to use vaccine again. But yes A, which i rejected, is indeed the right answer after your exlanation

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 367

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Schools: NUS '20
Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2015, 08:58
Hello Mike

I am still not able to digest this logic - Given that we are being asked for a conclusion, we are assuming a lot of things here:
1. The virus is passive. We don't know as to whether the vaccine terminated the virus or rendered it passive only
2. Passive virus cannot become active (in one individual and spread in adults) and hence can only affect children. For e.g. if instead of children in option A, if we would have said older population (may be they lost immunity), will this option still be a correct one

In what I've learned so far for conclusion questions --> Whatever exists in the stem is truth in entirety and hence I am skeptical on the reasoning you have provided.

Would be happy to hear from you.

Thanks
Saahil



mikemcgarry wrote:
jaituteja wrote:
Hi Mike,

How can we be so sure that the disease will definitely arrive for young children. The word "will" is very strong in option A.

Thanks, Jai

Dear Jai,
I'm happy to respond. :-)
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels.

Yes, the word "will" is a strong word, but we absolutely know this to be the case. You see, we know that Tacitus’ Disease is "a highly infectious virus," which means people get it very easily. It appears that the only reason Tacitus’ Disease hasn't be active for years is that the entire population has been vaccinated. Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population. If the authorities stop the vaccinations, then the children born after that time will be without any protection against this highly infectious disease. We can't say for sure that the children will get the disease, but it would seem that the probability is very high. We can say for sure that they are at risk. Any time someone is exposed to any danger without sufficient protection, by definition, they are "at risk." Infectious disease, no vaccination --- that's "at risk."

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4503

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2015, 14:42
rsaahil90 wrote:
Hello Mike

I am still not able to digest this logic - Given that we are being asked for a conclusion, we are assuming a lot of things here:
1. The virus is passive. We don't know as to whether the vaccine terminated the virus or rendered it passive only
2. Passive virus cannot become active (in one individual and spread in adults) and hence can only affect children. For e.g. if instead of children in option A, if we would have said older population (may be they lost immunity), will this option still be a correct one

In what I've learned so far for conclusion questions --> Whatever exists in the stem is truth in entirety and hence I am skeptical on the reasoning you have provided.

Would be happy to hear from you.

Thanks
Saahil

Dear rsaahil90,
I'm happy to help. :-) I think, in part, the problem is that you don't understand the basics of vaccines and viruses.

Right now, in all likelihood, you and I and most of the people we know have the polio virus in our bodies. We got the virus sometime during our lives, but because we were fortunate to get the polio vaccine when we were young, our immune system is educated about how to fight the polio virus, so we never developed any of the symptoms of polio. You see, a vaccine does not terminate a virus: a vaccine does nothing directly to the virus itself. The job of a vaccine is to educate the human immune system, as it were to "teach" the immune system how to fight a disease, so that we don't have to go through having the disease. Every vaccine you and I have received has taught out how to fight those particular viruses (polio, mumps, measles, diphtheria, etc.) In all likelihood, we have encountered all these virus during our lives and may carry these viruses in our body. Because our immune systems know how to fight these diseases, we don't get these diseases, but the viruses are there, and theoretically, at any time we could infect an unvaccinated person, if we ever were to encounter one.
So far as I know, the immunity that one gets from vaccines does not diminish in old age---old folks have other immune problems, but I have never heard of an old person getting polio or mumps or measles or etc. after they had been vaccinated in youth.
The word "passive" in this context is not a medical term: I was simply trying to describe the situation of these viruses in our bodies: they are present but they don't make us sick. Once again, if the virus is present, then even though I am not sick, I could be carrying it and could infect someone else, if that other person had not been vaccinated.

Once again, all this is not specialized knowledge. The details of exactly how a vaccine works, exactly how vaccines are manufactured, the biochemistry of the immune system's response to them---all that is specialized biological knowledge. The overview I have given, by contrast, is something that every intelligent person should know. Every intelligent person should know that antibiotics kill bacteria but have zero effect on viruses. Similarly, everyone should know that a vaccine enhances the human immune system, enabling the immune system to fight a virus, but the vaccine itself does zero to the virus. No medicine and no drug can fight a virus: the most drugs can do is manage symptoms. If a virus is in, say a pot of water, we can destroy the virus by boiling the water. We can destroy virus outside the body by heat or chemical means, but a virus inside the body is considerably harder to fight. Basically, the only thing on Earth that we know that can fight and destroy a virus inside us is the human immune system itself, and vaccines brilliantly harness this power of the immune system to fight particular viruses. Once again, all this is in the realm that every intelligent person should know, and this "background knowledge" is crucial for understanding GMAT CR questions.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Schools: NUS '20
Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2015, 03:22
Hello Mike

Thank you for the detailed explanation - I would still say that I am not fully convinced by the "every intelligent person" ideology. I am still 25 and had only had exposure to so many sciences and hence knowledge for me to be in the intelligent set. My firm belief when I step in for my GMAT would be to read the question stem and try to get whatever I can get out of it (not applying anything I personally know about the topic)

Cheers again for the explanation!
Saahil


mikemcgarry wrote:
rsaahil90 wrote:
Hello Mike

I am still not able to digest this logic - Given that we are being asked for a conclusion, we are assuming a lot of things here:
1. The virus is passive. We don't know as to whether the vaccine terminated the virus or rendered it passive only
2. Passive virus cannot become active (in one individual and spread in adults) and hence can only affect children. For e.g. if instead of children in option A, if we would have said older population (may be they lost immunity), will this option still be a correct one

In what I've learned so far for conclusion questions --> Whatever exists in the stem is truth in entirety and hence I am skeptical on the reasoning you have provided.

Would be happy to hear from you.

Thanks
Saahil

Dear rsaahil90,
I'm happy to help. :-) I think, in part, the problem is that you don't understand the basics of vaccines and viruses.

Right now, in all likelihood, you and I and most of the people we know have the polio virus in our bodies. We got the virus sometime during our lives, but because we were fortunate to get the polio vaccine when we were young, our immune system is educated about how to fight the polio virus, so we never developed any of the symptoms of polio. You see, a vaccine does not terminate a virus: a vaccine does nothing directly to the virus itself. The job of a vaccine is to educate the human immune system, as it were to "teach" the immune system how to fight a disease, so that we don't have to go through having the disease. Every vaccine you and I have received has taught out how to fight those particular viruses (polio, mumps, measles, diphtheria, etc.) In all likelihood, we have encountered all these virus during our lives and may carry these viruses in our body. Because our immune systems know how to fight these diseases, we don't get these diseases, but the viruses are there, and theoretically, at any time we could infect an unvaccinated person, if we ever were to encounter one.
So far as I know, the immunity that one gets from vaccines does not diminish in old age---old folks have other immune problems, but I have never heard of an old person getting polio or mumps or measles or etc. after they had been vaccinated in youth.
The word "passive" in this context is not a medical term: I was simply trying to describe the situation of these viruses in our bodies: they are present but they don't make us sick. Once again, if the virus is present, then even though I am not sick, I could be carrying it and could infect someone else, if that other person had not been vaccinated.

Once again, all this is not specialized knowledge. The details of exactly how a vaccine works, exactly how vaccines are manufactured, the biochemistry of the immune system's response to them---all that is specialized biological knowledge. The overview I have given, by contrast, is something that every intelligent person should know. Every intelligent person should know that antibiotics kill bacteria but have zero effect on viruses. Similarly, everyone should know that a vaccine enhances the human immune system, enabling the immune system to fight a virus, but the vaccine itself does zero to the virus. No medicine and no drug can fight a virus: the most drugs can do is manage symptoms. If a virus is in, say a pot of water, we can destroy the virus by boiling the water. We can destroy virus outside the body by heat or chemical means, but a virus inside the body is considerably harder to fight. Basically, the only thing on Earth that we know that can fight and destroy a virus inside us is the human immune system itself, and vaccines brilliantly harness this power of the immune system to fight particular viruses. Once again, all this is in the realm that every intelligent person should know, and this "background knowledge" is crucial for understanding GMAT CR questions.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 137 [0], given: 142

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2016, 19:55
Hi mikemcgarry

(in line with what rsaahil90 and a few others brought up)

This question has led me into thinking about a very basics issue of GMAT CR- 'Till what extent can we bring in our real world knowledge while answering a CR question??'

This question can be answered correctly even if we ignore 90% of the info that is given in the passage and consider only the portion of it that says - 'state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine'. And, didnt we actually answer it this way?? This was only possible because we know from the real world that if a vaccine is discontinued, those who never received it would be at risk.

U see, most part of the discussion on this thread has been dealing with 'real world knowledge', for instance, the discussion on 'Smallpox'. The moment i see something other than the question itself being discussed (vaccinations, in this case), and it makes me feel 'Thank God! we'r finally into the real world now... but wait, my test isnt done yet and i'm drifting away from the high-endurance-demanding-CR-mindset :)'

Please help me here. Are we expected to have and apply this knowledge about vaccination?

BTW, how do I answer this question if I am not aware that 'Vaccination is given at an early age'?

Thanks!
_________________

One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all... :thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain

Kudos [?]: 137 [0], given: 142

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4503

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Apr 2016, 10:25
arhumsid wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry

(in line with what rsaahil90 and a few others brought up)

This question has led me into thinking about a very basics issue of GMAT CR- 'Till what extent can we bring in our real world knowledge while answering a CR question??'

This question can be answered correctly even if we ignore 90% of the info that is given in the passage and consider only the portion of it that says - 'state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine'. And, didnt we actually answer it this way?? This was only possible because we know from the real world that if a vaccine is discontinued, those who never received it would be at risk.

U see, most part of the discussion on this thread has been dealing with 'real world knowledge', for instance, the discussion on 'Smallpox'. The moment i see something other than the question itself being discussed (vaccinations, in this case), and it makes me feel 'Thank God! we'r finally into the real world now... but wait, my test isnt done yet and i'm drifting away from the high-endurance-demanding-CR-mindset :)'

Please help me here. Are we expected to have and apply this knowledge about vaccination?

BTW, how do I answer this question if I am not aware that 'Vaccination is given at an early age'?

Thanks!

Dear arhumsid
i'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, the GMAT is designed to prepare you for business school, which in turn is designed to prepare you for the business world. If you are not conversant in commonly known facts about the real world, you will flounder in the business world. If B-school adcom senses that you don't have a keen understanding of basic real world issues, you will not be an attractive candidate even if you have an 800 on the GMAT. This is about much much more than performance on the GMAT CR.

If you make a dichotomy between CR-intelligence and real-world intelligence, you do not truly understand the nature of the CR. It's not about leaving one way of thinking and drawing on a completely different way of thinking. Instead, it's about developing an intelligence in which logic and real-world instincts function seamlessly.

Of course, you do not need to be an expert about vaccines. You do not need to know their history, their biological mechanism. You just need to have the basic idea: almost everyone in the modern world gets vaccines in infancy. Parents regularly do this for their kids. Why? What does getting a vaccine do? What would happen if one didn't get it?

Think about it. Think about any activity that over 90% of the population does, and think about the motivations and economics of that. Entertainment is a huge industry: how much money is spent and where does the money go? Lots of people drive: how does registering a car work? how does a drivers license work? From whence does the food in your grocery store come? Who paves the roads and who pays those people to do so? Where does the water in your house come from, and where does the waste water go? Part of preparing for the GMAT and for business school involves developing a curiosity about the economic systems all around us. You want to go to business school and be an expert in business? Well, business is happening everyday all around you. Money is being exchanged for hundreds of different reasons. Part of understanding business means getting curious about all that.

You can learn a lot simply by reading the business news: the WSJ, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, etc. You can also learn a lot by talking to people who are 20-30 years older than you: what are their motivations and concerns? What insights can they provide simply from their lived experience?

Will you see a question on the GMAT about vaccines? Probably not. Will you see a CR question that somehow involves some real-world economic activity that happens in your immediate environment every day? Quite likely. The more you have instincts for that real-world activity, the easier the CR question will be for you.

I will suggest this blog:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge
The links at the end of that article provide a kind of primer about different categories of real world knowledge that could be helpful on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8791 [0], given: 106

Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 805

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Premium Member
Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2017, 09:03
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

VP
VP
User avatar
G
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1083

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 541

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2017, 02:35
Answer is A
A very good question .
A and C are close contenders .
Lets take a close look at C
C) Tacitus’ Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate .
This may be true for Tacitus but we do know that vaccine program should be started again and and does tell us whether it might spread again.

A hits nail on the head as it gives us evidence that if vaccine program for Tacitus is not restarted children will suffer from disease.
Hope it helps .
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 541

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 15

Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, NUS '20, NTU '19
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.7
CAT Tests
Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2017, 00:28
mikemcgarry wrote:
jaituteja wrote:
Hi Mike,

How can we be so sure that the disease will definitely arrive for young children. The word "will" is very strong in option A.

Thanks, Jai

Dear Jai,
I'm happy to respond. :-)
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels.

Yes, the word "will" is a strong word, but we absolutely know this to be the case. You see, we know that Tacitus’ Disease is "a highly infectious virus," which means people get it very easily. It appears that the only reason Tacitus’ Disease hasn't be active for years is that the entire population has been vaccinated. Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population. If the authorities stop the vaccinations, then the children born after that time will be without any protection against this highly infectious disease. We can't say for sure that the children will get the disease, but it would seem that the probability is very high. We can say for sure that they are at risk. Any time someone is exposed to any danger without sufficient protection, by definition, they are "at risk." Infectious disease, no vaccination --- that's "at risk."

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Isnt it a big assumption?

Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population.

Suppose I dont belong to any medical profession how do i know that people can carry virus even after vaccination? question stem doesn't say this.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 15

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4503

Kudos [?]: 8791 [1], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2017, 14:04
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
ramsahoo wrote:
Isnt it a big assumption?

Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population.

Suppose I dont belong to any medical profession how do i know that people can carry virus even after vaccination? question stem doesn't say this.

Dear ramsahoo,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, many students think that the only information they need is what exists in the prompt. This is a big misconception about the GMAT CR. You don't need to have detailed specialized knowledge, but you absolutely need to have a basic appreciation for real world facts, especially facts about the business world. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge
Think about it. The GMAT CR is about preparing you for the business world, because executives have to evaluate arguments all the time. If you read an article or hear a presentation saying, for example, that X is a good thing, you are not simply responsible for what the article or presentation says. As a business executive, you will have to have an appreciation of the larger forces at work in the market, to decide how to evaluate that argument.

For this question, you don't need to have a medical student's understanding of the mechanisms of vaccines. Think about it. You probably have gotten many vaccines when you were young. Probably so did everyone else that you know. Get curious. What have you and everyone else gotten? How do it work? Why do people use vaccines? Read a Wikipedia article about it. Talk to someone who has more knowledge than you. Do whatever you can to learn about the world around you.

The mindset of mediocrity says, "I didn't know I was responsible to know that." The mindset of excellence is all about learning as much as possible about the world around us. If you have a rich understanding of the real world and of the business world, you will be very successful in GMAT CR, in B school, and in your career.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8791 [1], given: 106

Re: Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating   [#permalink] 30 Sep 2017, 14:04

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 42 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.