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

 It is currently 15 Aug 2018, 04:06

### 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

# The government has made great strides in implementing

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8184
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

11 Nov 2012, 19:16
1
kartik222 wrote:
Hi all,

I find this question not trick but poorly worded.

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

One interpretation of question is what you guys have discussed above. According to that E is the answer. However, look at the highlighted text above. This could be a potential interpretation. Premise states about immunization is public school and then they say if "all children". This can mean they are assuming all the children are in public school and hence leads to assumption as answer A "Only public schools require immunization."

can any expert throw some light on my interpretation and tell me if I my understanding is wrong.

thank you!
-k

You cannot interpret that all children study in public schools. The argument just tells you that public schools have made great strides. It goes on to say, 'When all children are properly ...' He doesn't say, 'This will ensure that all children are properly ...'
e.g. One says, 'Countries in Asia have made peace with their neighbors. When all countries make peace, the world will be a better place.' It doesn't imply that all countries are in Asia!
Also, the author says, 'When all children ...'
How is he assuming that only public schools require immunization? Even if we do incorrectly interpret that he means that all children are in public schools, he is still not assuming that only public schools require immunization. There could be many kids not going to school. He clearly says, 'When all children are ...'
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to \$1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 160
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 02:25
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
kartik222 wrote:
Hi all,

I find this question not trick but poorly worded.

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

One interpretation of question is what you guys have discussed above. According to that E is the answer. However, look at the highlighted text above. This could be a potential interpretation. Premise states about immunization is public school and then they say if "all children". This can mean they are assuming all the children are in public school and hence leads to assumption as answer A "Only public schools require immunization."

can any expert throw some light on my interpretation and tell me if I my understanding is wrong.

thank you!
-k

You cannot interpret that all children study in public schools. The argument just tells you that public schools have made great strides. It goes on to say, 'When all children are properly ...' He doesn't say, 'This will ensure that all children are properly ...'
e.g. One says, 'Countries in Asia have made peace with their neighbors. When all countries make peace, the world will be a better place.' It doesn't imply that all countries are in Asia!
Also, the author says, 'When all children ...'
How is he assuming that only public schools require immunization? Even if we do incorrectly interpret that he means that all children are in public schools, he is still not assuming that only public schools require immunization. There could be many kids not going to school. He clearly says, 'When all children are ...'

In the argument, all the children refer to only public school children because if that's not the case then Kartik222 made a valid point. In the example provided by you, all the countries refer to countries in asia & their neighbours right??
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8184
Location: Pune, India
Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 20:11
Archit143 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
amma4u wrote:
3) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.

and this will not keep good health.

This is a trick used by GMAT. What you need to understand for these questions is the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions.

Immunization is one of the things that ensure the health of children (there are other factors such as nutrition, clean environment etc).
The author assumes that immunization is sufficient to ensure the health of children. That nothing else is needed. He says, "When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health." That is his incorrect assumption. Answer is (E)

Let me come to why (C) is not the answer.
We know he believes that when all children all properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health. But do we know what he thinks will happen if they are not immunized? Does he think most of them will fall victim to disease? Does he think they will be vulnerable to disease? We do not know. All we know is that he is assuming that if you vaccinate children, they will remain healthy. He is not assuming anything about what will happen if you do not vaccinate the children.

Hi karishma

You have been posting excellent explanations for this question since 2010 almost 3 years..........

"Immunization is one of the things that ensure the health of children (there are other factors such as nutrition, clean environment etc).
The author assumes that immunization is sufficient to ensure the health of children."

this is quoted from your above post.... Pls explain on the basis of the above quoted explanation, it means that If not immunized , they will not be immune to disease......Which is option C

Is it because of the transition in word " Health" to " Disease" that we consider the answer to be wrong or the negative answer...For rookie test takers like me..C and E are very closely placed...Difficult to understand implied meaning of both....In 2 min time its difficult to differentiate between the two..
Pls explain how to distinguish between C and E and eliminate option C.

I say, 'If you keep eating like this, you will not lose weight.'

What does this imply? That I believe that if you keep eating, you will not lose weight. What do you think I believe will happen if you don't eat like that? You can't say! I may believe that you will lose weight right away. I may believe that you will need to diet and exercise and then you will lose weight. I haven't said anything about what will happen if you don't eat like that. I have only told you what I believe will happen if you do keep eating like that.

The author says 'When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.'
He doesn't say what will happen when all children are not properly immunized. Perhaps he believes very few will fall sick or some will fall sick or many will fall sick etc.

whereas E clearly gives an assumption he is making. He says that when children are immunized, they will be healthy i.e. no other factors affect the health of the children. That immunization is enough to ensure the health.
Try to negate (E) - Immunization is not the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. You need other things too.

Can the author's conclusion still hold? No. He is concluding that immunization guarantees health.
When you negate E, the conclusion falls. Hence, it is the assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to \$1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8184
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 20:24
Vineetk wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
kartik222 wrote:
Hi all,

I find this question not trick but poorly worded.

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

One interpretation of question is what you guys have discussed above. According to that E is the answer. However, look at the highlighted text above. This could be a potential interpretation. Premise states about immunization is public school and then they say if "all children". This can mean they are assuming all the children are in public school and hence leads to assumption as answer A "Only public schools require immunization."

can any expert throw some light on my interpretation and tell me if I my understanding is wrong.

thank you!
-k

You cannot interpret that all children study in public schools. The argument just tells you that public schools have made great strides. It goes on to say, 'When all children are properly ...' He doesn't say, 'This will ensure that all children are properly ...'
e.g. One says, 'Countries in Asia have made peace with their neighbors. When all countries make peace, the world will be a better place.' It doesn't imply that all countries are in Asia!
Also, the author says, 'When all children ...'
How is he assuming that only public schools require immunization? Even if we do incorrectly interpret that he means that all children are in public schools, he is still not assuming that only public schools require immunization. There could be many kids not going to school. He clearly says, 'When all children are ...'

In the argument, all the children refer to only public school children because if that's not the case then Kartik222 made a valid point. In the example provided by you, all the countries refer to countries in asia & their neighbours right??

No, it doesn't. It refers to children in general. The statement about public schools is only an example of something going on today. Only one example of efforts that are on to immunize children. It's an introduction to his argument. The conclusion is a generic statement 'when children are immmunized, we will be able to ensure their health.'

Don't forget what an assumption is - it is something the author believes in i.e. he is assuming it to be true even though he doesn't say it as such.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to \$1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Director
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 871
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2014, 03:58
Negation is the best tool to deal with assumption question though one will take time, one will be able to identify right option.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Posts: 56

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2014, 05:42
Dear Experts,

1.
When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.
--> The author doesn't seem to mean immunization is the only & the sufficient criteria. He seems to say that immunization is a necessary criteria, e.g., if a doctor says "Taking the prescribed medicine is a must". He definitely doesn't mean to say that taking medicine is sufficient for the patient's recovery and he could start eating junk since medicine would cover for anything he does.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

2.
B) Children are not already properly immunized.
--> This sounded good to me because had all the children been properly immunized already, there was no point spending money on immunization. Since govt is spending heavy money on immunization, so, the govt. does think that it is yet to be done, e.g., if I feed my children food, I do so because I think they aren't fed already or atleast aren't already properly fed. If they already are, why would I stuff them again unnecessarily.

3.
D) Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
--> This also sounded to me like a good candidate because the argument says that the govt is spending a lot of money, so, they (govt.) must be of the view that immunization is effective enough to justify the expenditure.
But since B was directly attacking the argument, I chose B over D.

4.
E) Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.
--> Well, this didn't strike as an answer (assumption) because the author never said "immunization" is the ONLY or sufficient condition. He only meant "immunization" is a necessary criteria.

I really appreciate an expert's help on this. Thank you very much in advance.

- DA
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8184
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2014, 00:13
divineacclivity wrote:
Dear Experts,

1.
When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.
--> The author doesn't seem to mean immunization is the only & the sufficient criteria. He seems to say that immunization is a necessary criteria, e.g., if a doctor says "Taking the prescribed medicine is a must". He definitely doesn't mean to say that taking medicine is sufficient for the patient's recovery and he could start eating junk since medicine would cover for anything he does.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

2.
B) Children are not already properly immunized.
--> This sounded good to me because had all the children been properly immunized already, there was no point spending money on immunization. Since govt is spending heavy money on immunization, so, the govt. does think that it is yet to be done, e.g., if I feed my children food, I do so because I think they aren't fed already or atleast aren't already properly fed. If they already are, why would I stuff them again unnecessarily.

3.
D) Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
--> This also sounded to me like a good candidate because the argument says that the govt is spending a lot of money, so, they (govt.) must be of the view that immunization is effective enough to justify the expenditure.
But since B was directly attacking the argument, I chose B over D.

4.
E) Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.
--> Well, this didn't strike as an answer (assumption) because the author never said "immunization" is the ONLY or sufficient condition. He only meant "immunization" is a necessary criteria.

I really appreciate an expert's help on this. Thank you very much in advance.

- DA

I think you have messed up the question. Option (A) that you have discussed is a part of the argument. In fact, it is the conclusion of the argument.
The argument is this:

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

The author assumes that immunization is all that is necessary to "ensure their health". You might want to re-think the question now.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to \$1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 264
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 3.5

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2014, 00:01
A,We don't know about requirement , just immunized children will be healthy
B, Negate , Children are already properly immunized, then ensure health.
C,Negate: If immunized, children will not fall sick , mean healthy support to conclusion
D, Irrelevant
E,If not the only precaution, then no immunization , so not healthy ( Conclusion fails)
So E..
_________________

I welcome analysis on my posts and kudo +1 if helpful. It helps me to improve my craft.Thank you

Director
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 500
Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2015, 07:05
The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost.
When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

B: Children are not already properly immunized.
>> Negation. Children are already properly immunized.Cool then we can ensure their health. doesnt hurt author's claim.

E:Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.
>> Negation. Immunization is not the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. Then the author's claim doesn't hold true.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Manager
Status: folding sleeves up
Joined: 26 Apr 2013
Posts: 146
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 530 Q39 V23
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Computer Hardware)

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2015, 04:40
Hi Karishma,

The author states that they are implementing the vaccination in public school and then he continues that when all the children are immune-
Does he mean all the children in public school?

if yes then option A says : Only public schools require immunization

if I negate this then " Not only public schools require vaccination but some others also" then the conclusion falls apart because gov will not be able to ensure health.

Where am I wrong ?

Ravi
Jamboree GMAT Instructor
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 276
Location: India

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2015, 21:13
What is the main contention of the argument? Implementing immunization will ensure the health of all children. Hence if the children are immunized they would have no health issues. So this is a case of A causes B. Here the author assumes immunization is the only factor which ensures health and there are no other external factors involved. The venue is not the focus of the argument. In answer choice A it is mentioned "public school systems" . So its a system that has been referred. You can not negate it saying "not public schools but other schools too". Moreover like I said the venue is not the main focus of the argument.Hence A is not a necessary assumption.
_________________

Aryama Dutta Saikia
Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd.

Intern
Joined: 17 May 2015
Posts: 38

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2015, 10:33
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
amma4u wrote:
3) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.

and this will not keep good health.

This is a trick used by GMAT. What you need to understand for these questions is the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions.

Immunization is one of the things that ensure the health of children (there are other factors such as nutrition, clean environment etc).
The author assumes that immunization is sufficient to ensure the health of children. That nothing else is needed. He says, "When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health." That is his incorrect assumption. Answer is (E)

Let me come to why (C) is not the answer.
We know he believes that when all children all properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health. But do we know what he thinks will happen if they are not immunized? Does he think most of them will fall victim to disease? Does he think they will be vulnerable to disease? We do not know. All we know is that he is assuming that if you vaccinate children, they will remain healthy. He is not assuming anything about what will happen if you do not vaccinate the children.

Is there are blog post on necessary and sufficient reasoning ? Also what role does the first sentence play in the argument. Premise ? background ?
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2717
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 20:39
hemanthp wrote:
The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization.
Children are not already properly immunized.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

straight E for me...
this is an assumption type of question,,,
A - if not, then the argument is not shattered. so out.
B - negate it -> doesn't change the conclusion.
C - well, duh, but doesnt help.
D - not good..out of scope.
E - if we negate it -> then the conclusion is weakened.
Intern
Joined: 13 May 2015
Posts: 3

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2016, 08:52
My negation of C--> If immunised, most children will suffer from diseases. This ,clearly breaks the conclusion. Why is this nit the answer??
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8184
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2016, 20:23
src_saurav wrote:
My negation of C--> If immunised, most children will suffer from diseases. This ,clearly breaks the conclusion. Why is this nit the answer??

The negation of (C) is this:

If not immunized, most children will not fall victim to disease.

The main verb is negated so "will fall" will become "will not fall".

Here is why (C) is not the answer:

We know he believes that when all children all properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health. But do we know what he thinks will happen if they are not immunized? Does he think most of them will fall victim to disease? Does he think they will be vulnerable to disease? We do not know. All we know is that he is assuming that if you vaccinate children, they will remain healthy. He is not assuming anything about what will happen if you do not vaccinate the children.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to \$1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Intern
Joined: 13 Jan 2015
Posts: 12

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2016, 23:10
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
amma4u wrote:
3) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.

and this will not keep good health.

This is a trick used by GMAT. What you need to understand for these questions is the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions.

Immunization is one of the things that ensure the health of children (there are other factors such as nutrition, clean environment etc).
The author assumes that immunization is sufficient to ensure the health of children. That nothing else is needed. He says, "When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health." That is his incorrect assumption. Answer is (E)

Let me come to why (C) is not the answer.
We know he believes that when all children all properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health. But do we know what he thinks will happen if they are not immunized? Does he think most of them will fall victim to disease? Does he think they will be vulnerable to disease? We do not know. All we know is that he is assuming that if you vaccinate children, they will remain healthy. He is not assuming anything about what will happen if you do not vaccinate the children.

CAN YOU PLEASE REVIEW MY PROCESS OF NEGATION

I NEGATED OPTION C as If not immunized,UPTO 50% children will fall victim to disease

I NEGATED OPTION D as Immunization is NOT the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

DESTROYS THE CONCLUSION
Current Student
Status: DONE!
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 398

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2016, 14:29
E is correct. Here's why:

(A) Only public schools require immunization.-->
(B) Children are not already properly immunized. --> irrelevant
(C) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease. --> irrelevant; too broad
(D) Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer. --> outside bounds of the argument
(E) Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. --> Correct; establishes clear link between immunization and ensuring child's health
Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 89
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2016, 06:43
The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization.
Children are not already properly immunized.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

Okay, In the argument it says if we immunize children, we will ensure good health. What must be underlined assumption here:
In children, if we give immune injections we are sure that they will not get affected by disease.
A. Out of scope, this doesn't answer anything.
B. Think, does this answers our query. If they are given immunization and that is not proper then we won't reach our conclusion. This casts even more doubt on the governments plan.
C. Negate this option: if immunized, Most children do not fall victim. This leaves a gap of some children that may fall victim. Argument fails.
D. Cost is not the subject matter of discussion.
E. This perfectly fills the gap. If this is the only way to guarantee childs health our work is done.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1854
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 21:10
the argument structure in this question is not obvious. The first half of the second setence is the premise and the other half is the conclusion => E is the assumption.
The first sentence just gives out a context of the argument.
Re: The government has made great strides in implementing &nbs [#permalink] 17 Jul 2017, 21:10

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.