GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 May 2019, 12:53

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

Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

General GMAT Forum Moderator
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Posts: 1249
Location: India
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 May 2017, 07:09
1
2
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (02:21) correct 30% (02:38) wrong based on 428 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western Hemisphere by the first Europeans, including smallpox, hepatitis, typhus, and measles, killed 95 percent of the Native American population and allowed Europeans to begin their conquest of the continent. If the Native American population had been twenty times greater, only 4.75 percent of the population would have died, and the Europeans would never have been able to conquer North and South America.

Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Michele’s conclusion?

(A) Native Americans generally lacked the enzyme that would allow them to digest the sugars in milk.
(B) Knowledge of medicine in Native America was much more advanced than in Europe at the time of Columbus.
(C) At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity.
(D) The death rates from the Black Death were higher than 33 percent in specific locations.
(E) Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction.

_________________
If you liked my post, kindly give me a Kudos. Thanks.
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3631
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 May 2017, 07:32
1
Sara said: Europeans brought diseases and these diseases killed 95% of the Americans.

Michele said: No Man, your numbers are too high. Max declined could be 75%.

Assumption: He is thinking not all people are same.

We need to weaken it.

(A) Native Americans generally lacked the enzyme that would allow them to digest the sugars in milk. : What is this milk and sugar? Non sense. Incorrect
(B) Knowledge of medicine in Native America was much more advanced than in Europe at the time of Columbus. If they knew it, then Michelle could be right. A strengthener.
(C) At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity. : Yes, so people were of same genetics and could be impacted more.
(D) The death rates from the Black Death were higher than 33 percent in specific locations. : OFS. No relevance
(E) Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction. Whether they die or not is irrelevant.
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 424
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.33
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 07:06
Option C is be the right answer. Here , though the fact that colonization by Europeans began with the arrival of Columbus is known from our general knowledge the prompt should have ideally mentioned it. As far as I know GMAT does not test our knowledge of history or any other subject on the verbal part.
_________________
" The few , the fearless "
Current Student
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Location: United States (TX)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.58
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 11:25
spetznaz wrote:
Option C is be the right answer. Here , though the fact that colonization by Europeans began with the arrival of Columbus is known from our general knowledge the prompt should have ideally mentioned it. As far as I know GMAT does not test our knowledge of history or any other subject on the verbal part.

Why C over D?

If the black death rates were higher in specific areas, than the conclusion that the death rate is too high is wrong, as there is no limit to how high the death rate could be.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jul 2017, 14:23
4
C is correct - I used the following reasoning:
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western Hemisphere by the first Europeans, including smallpox, hepatitis, typhus, and measles, killed 95 percent of the Native American population and allowed Europeans to begin their conquest of the continent. If the Native American population had been twenty times greater, only 4.75 percent of the population would have died, and the Europeans would never have been able to conquer North and South America.

Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average.Essentially she says that there was a greater population in America than the dialogue above has explained - so we need to undermine this

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Michele’s conclusion?

(A) Native Americans generally lacked the enzyme that would allow them to digest the sugars in milk.:/ completely irrelevant - sugar and digestion as a cause has not been mentioned anywhere
(B) Knowledge of medicine in Native America was much more advanced than in Europe at the time of Columbus.Strengthens Michelle's conclusion
(C) At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity.Yes can help explain why S's argument makes sense - if they had no immunity the slightest infection could have killed several more
(D) The death rates from the Black Death were higher than 33 percent in specific locations.Black death is an extreme example used by Michelle to drive a point - whether or not it came to America that was mentioned by S (she only mentioned hepatitis/ typhus etc not black death. So D is out of scope and distracting
(E) Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction.randome fact

Hope this was helpful to anyone looking for reasons for C. Hit kudos if it was useful
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2017
Posts: 56
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 06:43
No where in the argument it is mentioned about Columbus. So how can we consider that option. ? mike carcass egmat Veritas help needed expert s
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 10:55
Anazeer wrote:
No where in the argument it is mentioned about Columbus. So how can we consider that option. ? mike carcass egmat Veritas help needed expert s

It is commonly believed that he discovered America (there are some disputes to it also),the continent; like Vasco de Gama discovered India, the sub-continent - i.e - he and his crew were one of the first to be on the land. And the immunity logic follows through - if he was one of the first to visit that land and they weren't exposed to anything else he could have spread some virus which would have had more virulent effect than usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph ... tinct_land
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2017
Posts: 56
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 19:12
I agree to that. but generally we dont take new facts right in CR
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 601
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Aug 2017, 13:04
Anazeer wrote:
I agree to that. but generally we dont take new facts right in CR

New facts in CR are allowed for certain types of questions: strengthen the argument, weaken the argument, assumption problems, and paradox problems. We do not consider outside information for: main point, method of reasoning, or find the flaw problems (I believe).
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Need a CR tutor? PM me!
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2017
Posts: 9
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Aug 2017, 19:54
C is correct - I used the following reasoning:
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western Hemisphere by the first Europeans, including smallpox, hepatitis, typhus, and measles, killed 95 percent of the Native American population and allowed Europeans to begin their conquest of the continent. If the Native American population had been twenty times greater, only 4.75 percent of the population would have died, and the Europeans would never have been able to conquer North and South America.

Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average.Essentially she says that there was a greater population in America than the dialogue above has explained - so we need to undermine this

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Michele’s conclusion?

(A) Native Americans generally lacked the enzyme that would allow them to digest the sugars in milk.:/ completely irrelevant - sugar and digestion as a cause has not been mentioned anywhere
(B) Knowledge of medicine in Native America was much more advanced than in Europe at the time of Columbus.Strengthens Michelle's conclusion
(C) At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity.Yes can help explain why S's argument makes sense - if they had no immunity the slightest infection could have killed several more
(D) The death rates from the Black Death were higher than 33 percent in specific locations.Black death is an extreme example used by Michelle to drive a point - whether or not it came to America that was mentioned by S (she only mentioned hepatitis/ typhus etc not black death. So D is out of scope and distracting
(E) Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction.randome fact

Hope this was helpful to anyone looking for reasons for C. Hit kudos if it was useful

my doubt here is that the passage explicitly mentions "Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average"
even with extreme vulnerability the death rate should not have been more than 75%
so even if Americans were genetically less diverse than Europeans and had low natural immunity the death rate should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average
I am confused
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 00:18
We need to basically undermine the second conclusion - "which of the following, if true, would most weaken Michele’s conclusion" - her conclusion is that the death rate mentioned by S is too high (she mentions 95% of pop); it is realistically between 50-75%. It strengthens S's conclusion that the first Europeans lowered the population by introducing them to lots of diseases --> C talks about lack of genetic diversity which means more people could have died.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 04:57
abhimahna wrote:
Sara said: Europeans brought diseases and these diseases killed 95% of the Americans.

Michele said: No Man, your numbers are too high. Max declined could be 75%.

Assumption: He is thinking not all people are same.

We need to weaken it.

(A) Native Americans generally lacked the enzyme that would allow them to digest the sugars in milk. : What is this milk and sugar? Non sense. Incorrect
(B) Knowledge of medicine in Native America was much more advanced than in Europe at the time of Columbus. If they knew it, then Michelle could be right. A strengthener.
(C) At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity. : Yes, so people were of same genetics and could be impacted more.
(D) The death rates from the Black Death were higher than 33 percent in specific locations. : OFS. No relevance
(E) Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction. Whether they die or not is irrelevant.

Hi abhimahna bruh,

I am really confused now.

See, my understanding in general of a GMAT question is that the premise is always correct. Conclusion can be flawed.
For example: If a GMAT questions states that "Sun is rectangle. So, all squares are sun." --> This may not be logical in real world, but it is perfectly logical argument as far as GMAT is concerned.

Coming back to the question at hand.

gmatexam439 wrote:
Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average.

The highlighted part strictly takes into consideration that the American could have been extremely vulnerable, and option "C" talks about the "low immunity". Isn't this the same information from the passage? Isn't it restating what is written in the passage?

Regards
_________________
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 601
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 07:40
gmatexam439 wrote:
abhimahna wrote:
Sara said: Europeans brought diseases and these diseases killed 95% of the Americans.

Michele said: No Man, your numbers are too high. Max declined could be 75%.

Assumption: He is thinking not all people are same.

We need to weaken it.

(A) Native Americans generally lacked the enzyme that would allow them to digest the sugars in milk. : What is this milk and sugar? Non sense. Incorrect
(B) Knowledge of medicine in Native America was much more advanced than in Europe at the time of Columbus. If they knew it, then Michelle could be right. A strengthener.
(C) At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity. : Yes, so people were of same genetics and could be impacted more.
(D) The death rates from the Black Death were higher than 33 percent in specific locations. : OFS. No relevance
(E) Diseases that quickly kill more than 75 percent of their infected hosts usually die off with their host’s extinction. Whether they die or not is irrelevant.

Hi abhimahna bruh,

I am really confused now.

See, my understanding in general of a GMAT question is that the premise is always correct. Conclusion can be flawed.
For example: If a GMAT questions states that "Sun is rectangle. So, all squares are sun." --> This may not be logical in real world, but it is perfectly logical argument as far as GMAT is concerned.

Coming back to the question at hand.

gmatexam439 wrote:
Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average.

The highlighted part strictly takes into consideration that the American could have been extremely vulnerable, and option "C" talks about the "low immunity". Isn't this the same information from the passage? Isn't it restating what is written in the passage?

Regards

Hi Gmat,

The reason (C) works in this case is because immunity and diversity are two different things. Immunity is resistance within a person or group, whereas diversity is how different the people are. A group could be diverse, but still have no immunity to a common cold. On the flip side, the group could not be diverse, but have an immunity to a certain disease. Question: Native Americans not diverse -- less immunity -- more death. Your highlighted part talks about low immunity, so death must occur. The answer relates low immunity to low diversity, and subsequently death. I think this is where you became confused.

I hope this helps!
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Need a CR tutor? PM me!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 07:52
Hi Gmat,

The reason (C) works in this case is because immunity and diversity are two different things. Immunity is resistance within a person or group, whereas diversity is how different the people are. A group could be diverse, but still have no immunity to a common cold. On the flip side, the group could not be diverse, but have an immunity to a certain disease. Question: Native Americans not diverse -- less immunity -- more death. Your highlighted part talks about low immunity, so death must occur. The answer relates low immunity to low diversity, and subsequently death. I think this is where you became confused.

I hope this helps!

Hi Night,

Option C: "At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity"
This option is relating the diversity to immunity.

While the - "Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases" - part in the passage is correlating immunity with exposure to diseases.

In both the scenarios, death is happening because of the lack of immunity. If we see cause and effect, the cause of death is same. The cause of immunity can be different, since the passage is just taking into account only 1 scenario in the aforesaid lines. So, is it really a weakener?

Regards
_________________
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 601
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 08:34
1
1
gmatexam439 wrote:
Hi Gmat,

The reason (C) works in this case is because immunity and diversity are two different things. Immunity is resistance within a person or group, whereas diversity is how different the people are. A group could be diverse, but still have no immunity to a common cold. On the flip side, the group could not be diverse, but have an immunity to a certain disease. Question: Native Americans not diverse -- less immunity -- more death. Your highlighted part talks about low immunity, so death must occur. The answer relates low immunity to low diversity, and subsequently death. I think this is where you became confused.

I hope this helps!

Hi Night,

Option C: "At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity"
This option is relating the diversity to immunity.

While the - "Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases" - part in the passage is correlating immunity with exposure to diseases.

In both the scenarios, death is happening because of the lack of immunity. If we see cause and effect, the cause of death is same. The cause of immunity can be different, since the passage is just taking into account only 1 scenario in the aforesaid lines. So, is it really a weakener?

Regards

Hi Gmat,

The passage states "Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average."

In the argument, there is a reference to JUST diseases and not diversity. Her argument does not account for diversity as a reason why there might be death. This fact weakens her argument that the number should be lower. She pins the death toll solely on disease and immunity, not on diversity. If Europeans were as diverse as Native American's, then her comparison would stand. But, because Native American's are less diverse, her numbers cannot be accurate by simply pointing out their exposure to diseases. It would low-ball the figure, most likely. Less diversity would mean MORE death. Her argument doesn't account for this.

Does this satisfy? If not, I can take another crack at it from a different point of view!
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Need a CR tutor? PM me!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 10:40
gmatexam439 wrote:
Hi Gmat,

The reason (C) works in this case is because immunity and diversity are two different things. Immunity is resistance within a person or group, whereas diversity is how different the people are. A group could be diverse, but still have no immunity to a common cold. On the flip side, the group could not be diverse, but have an immunity to a certain disease. Question: Native Americans not diverse -- less immunity -- more death. Your highlighted part talks about low immunity, so death must occur. The answer relates low immunity to low diversity, and subsequently death. I think this is where you became confused.

I hope this helps!

Hi Night,

Option C: "At the time of Columbus, Native Americans were much less genetically diverse than Europeans, so there were fewer possibilities of natural immunity"
This option is relating the diversity to immunity.

While the - "Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases" - part in the passage is correlating immunity with exposure to diseases.

In both the scenarios, death is happening because of the lack of immunity. If we see cause and effect, the cause of death is same. The cause of immunity can be different, since the passage is just taking into account only 1 scenario in the aforesaid lines. So, is it really a weakener?

Regards

Hi Gmat,

The passage states "Michele: Those death rates are way too high. The average rate of death in Europe from the most virulent epidemic in recorded history, the Black Death of the 14th century, was only 33 percent. Even if the Native American populations were extremely vulnerable due to their never having been exposed to these diseases, the cumulative death rate of all of the diseases should not have been more than 50 to 75 percent on average."

In the argument, there is a reference to JUST diseases and not diversity. Her argument does not account for diversity as a reason why there might be death. This fact weakens her argument that the number should be lower. She pins the death toll solely on disease and immunity, not on diversity. If Europeans were as diverse as Native American's, then her comparison would stand. But, because Native American's are less diverse, her numbers cannot be accurate by simply pointing out their exposure to diseases. It would low-ball the figure, most likely. Less diversity would mean MORE death. Her argument doesn't account for this.

Does this satisfy? If not, I can take another crack at it from a different point of view!

Thanks mate
_________________
Intern
Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Posts: 7
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Nov 2018, 22:17
Hello,

I understand why C weakens the argument. But in the passage nowhere is columbus mentioned in relation to native americans. So in this case, taking something to the true during something(eg, "at the time of columbus" which is unrelated to the argument) - isnt this something which we should not assume?
Re: Sara: Anthropologists estimate that diseases brought to the Western   [#permalink] 26 Nov 2018, 22:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by